324 Prain . — A Review of the genera 
genus two forms of an American Celandine on which in 1818 Nuttall had 
based his genus Stylophorum L This treatment, which obscures the limits 
of Meconopsis as Desportes’ had obscured those of Argemone , was repeated 
by De Candolle in 1824 (Prodr., i. 121). In the following year D. Don 
(Prodr. FI. Nepal., 196) returned to the view of Tournefort and of Linnaeus 
and treated certain species of Meconopsis as Papavers . However, in 1827, 
Sprengel (Syst., ii. 57 °) accepted De Candolle’s view as to the relationship 
of Meconopsis, V i g. , and Stylophorum , Nutt., but in doing so added a biblio- 
graphical difficulty to the taxonomic one, because he decided to reduce 
Viguier’s earlier name and to employ NuttalPs later one for the composite 
genus. This bouleversement was accepted by G. Don in 1831 (Gen. Syst., i.), 
and although Bernhardi in 1833 (Linnaea, viii. 462) restored Meconopsis to 
its proper position, the confusion was perpetuated by Steudel (Nomencl., 
ed. 2, ii.) in 1841, nor was it till A. Gray showed in 1848 (Gen., i. 114) that 
NuttalPs Stylophorum is not congeneric with Viguier’s Meconopsis that the 
latter name came into general use. 
The first genuine Meconopsis to be added to Viguier’s genus was 
M. napaulensis , described by De Candolle (Prodr., i. 121) in 1824; it has, 
however, to be noted that De Candolle treated it as a doubtful species, and 
that he placed it in his section Stylophorum , which should never have been 
included in the genus, not in Meconopsis proper. In 1825 D. Don described 
two others, also from Nepal (Prodr. FI. Nepal., 196). One of them Don 
supposed to be identical with M. napaulensis ; both he treated as species of 
Papaver. All three Nepalese species had been collected by Wallich, who 
issued them, with two others, from the Himalayan region but not from 
Nepal, in 1830 (Lith. Cat., nn. 8121-25) as unnamed species of Meconopsis. 
The identity of the Wallichian Meconopses will be given in dealing with the 
group Robustae. 
A few years later Bentham, in 1835, described two additional forms 
from California. These two, M. heterophylla and M. crassifolia , have given 
a good deal of trouble to Californian botanists. It appears to be generally 
admitted that there are really two distinguishable stylate ‘ Poppies ’ in 
California, but it seems to be doubtful whether they represent two forms of 
one species differing in facies in consequence of their environment (Flor. 
Francisc., 281), two distinct varieties of the same species (Flor. West Mid. 
Calif., 209), or two different species (Bot. San Francisc. Bay, 9). 
A fourth Himalayan species, which is included in the list of those 
issued without specific names by Wallich, was described as M. aculeata by 
Royle ( 111 . Him. PL, 67) in 1839. It was not till 1852 that another 
Himalayan species, the fifth from the Himalaya and the eighth species in 
the genus, was described by Sir W. Plooker (Bot. Mag., t. 4668). This last 
1 This complication, from the point of view of Stylophorum , is disentangled in Bulletin de 
l’herbier Boissier, iii, p. 573. 
