NOTES 
Notes on the Hawaiian Flora 
Benjamin C. Stone 1 
In this report on various Hawaiian plants are 
gathered taxonomic and nomenclatural notes 
which have accumulated over several years. Cer- 
tain new taxa, some nomenclatural adjustments, 
comments on noteworthy collections, and dis- 
tribution records are presented. 
CYPERACEAE 
An Additional Species of Cyperus in Kauai 
Cyperus haspan L. Kauai: Wahiawa Bog, 2 
January 1957, Stone 1665 (bish). Det. T. 
Koyama. New to Kauai; known also (collected 
once, recently) from Hawaii. Evidently an ad- 
ventive species; its distribution is very broad. 
PAPAVERACEAE 
Authority for the Hawaiian Argemone 
In his monograph of the genus Argemone in 
South America and Hawaii, G. B. Ownbey cites 
the Hawaiian species as Argemone glauca L. ex 
Pope, Man. Wayside PI. Haw., p. 71, pi. 32, 
1929, adding the remark "as 'Argemone glauca 
Linnaeus’ in error.” This was indeed as Pope 
published the species. It is manifest from Pope’s 
writing that he believed that A. glauca had pre- 
viously been described by Linnaeus, and he pre- 
sumably did not check on this assumption. In 
fact, Linnaeus published no such species. Pope 
clearly did not intend a new epithet. He also 
seems to have been unaware of the valid vari- 
etal name glauca published by Prain, in J. Bot. 
33:329, 1895, with Nuttall indicated as the 
source. However, Pope may have seen this pub- 
lication, and, retaining in memory the epithet, 
forgot its rank and place of publication; or 
1 Department of Botany, University of Malaya, 
Kuala Lumpur. Manuscript received June 15, 1966. 
perhaps the glaucous appearance of the plants 
in question simply suggested the same epithet. 
We also find Degener, in Plants of Hawaii 
National Park, p. 164, 1930, using the name 
Argemone glauca , but as a provisional name 
and hence not a formal nomenclatorial usage; 
and later in Flora Hawaiiensis (31 July 1958) 
where, with a long list of synonyms, the name 
is given as " Argemone glauca (Prain) Deg. & 
Deg. comb, nov.” Ownbey considers that this 
transfer is contrary to Article 32 of the Inter- 
national Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1956 
ed.). There seems to be no good reason to in- 
voke Art. 32, however, which in itself offers 
no reason to consider as incorrect the author 
citation as suggested by the Degeners. Ownbey 
himself seems to perpetuate the idea that Pope 
was "attributing” the name to Linnaeus. This 
is a practice that has been used at times, but it 
has nothing to recommend it and in this case 
is clearly not supported. 
We are forced to conclude that Pope’s de- 
scription, although definitely not intended as a 
proposed new name and species, can be taken 
as if he had proposed a new species. He is defi- 
nitely the first to publish the binomial Arge- 
mone glauca. He does furnish a good descrip- 
tion; since it was published in 1929, he did not 
have to include a Latin description. He cited 
no specimens and no holotype; but citation of 
type is required only after 1 January 1958. He 
does furnish an illustration. There is no diffi- 
culty at all in interpreting his meaning. Conse- 
quently we can accept his publication as if it 
were describing a new species, and thus the 
correct citation of the name is: Argemone 
glauca Pope, Man. Wayside PL Haw. p. 71, pi. 
32, 1929 (attributed in error to Linn.). 
A neotype should now be chosen for this 
species. The new combination by the Degeners, 
550 
