VIII, C, 3 
Hubbard: Eragrostis Cilianensis 
161 
they cannot make up their minds to use the name cilianensis. 
They dispose of oblonga {Briza oblonga Moench) because, on 
account of the insufficient description and the loss of Moench’s 
herbarium, the identity of the same cannot definitely be settled. 
This does not seem to me to be true, as Moench cites two things 
which with his scanty, though applicable (as far as it goes) de- 
scription, would fix the name to what has been known as Eragros- 
tis major Host. These two things are his synonymy: Briza 
eragrostis L. and the citation of Morison’s Plant. Hist, which 
is unquestionably E. major Host. 
While Ascherson and Graebner’s deductions may be good rea- 
soning they certainly are not according to any code and certainly 
do not dispose of either cilianensis or oblonga as older names 
than major or megastachya. Even supposing that Poa cilianen- 
sis All. were varietally distinct the name would still have to be 
retained for the species, making the more common form a variety, 
but judging from Ascherson and Graebner’s remarks I should 
consider it a depauperate, damp-ground form of the species and 
not a true variety. Their last remarks under the variety they 
have just created are that this noticeable form can, however, 
scarcely be considered a variety, since it occurs together with the 
typical form on one plant. The status of Poa cilianensis All. 
has, however, definitely been settled by Vignolo Lutati, cited 
above, and there is no doubt whatever but that Eragrostis cilia- 
nensis (All.) Vignolo Lutati is the oldest valid specific name for 
the common and very widely distributed grass commonly known 
as Eragrostis major Host, and as E. megastachya Link. 
