373 
Adenoclineae of South Africa. 
remarking that the plant he had in mind differs from the European species 
in being androgynous. Later in the year J. Burmann published his 
‘ Thesaurus Zeylanicus ’ ; in an appendix thereto (Cat. Afr. PI. Herm., 16) 
the African Mercurialis of Hermann, which had been treated by Boerhaave 
as the first species of Ricinokarpos , was referred to Hermann’s genus, not to 
that of Boerhaave. In the body of the work (Thes. Zeyl., 204) the name 
Ricinokarpos was restricted by Burmann to that part of Boerhaave’s genus 
which is represented by Hartog’s 3-coccous plant from Surinam ; his 
account of Ricinokarpos indica hirsuta foliis Urticae vulgaris fructus in 
parvis acetabidis gerens ends with the remark ‘ tricoccum adeoque omnia ut 
in Ricinokarpo Boerhavii cujus notas vide definitas in ejus Ind. H. L. Bat.’ 
The ancipital nature of Boerhaave’s genus was also realized by Royen, 
who followed Linnaeus in associating Boerhaave’s name Ricinokarpos with 
the 2-coccous African species and suggested that the new generic name 
which was necessary should be applied to the 3-coccous American species. 
Linnaeus before the close of 1737 adopted this suggestion, and published 
the proposed new genus (Coroll. Gen., 19), on Royen’s authority, as 986 
Acalypha : Ricinocarpos , Boerh. Burm. 92. This arrangement did not 
disturb the citation of Ricinocarpos , Boerh., under 756 Mercurialis in the 
‘ Genera’ itself ; it was repeated and regularized in 1742 (Gen. PI., ed. 2, 456), 
when 865 Acalypha , Roy., was given as the equivalent of Ricinocarpos , 
Boerh. Burm. 92, while under 910 Mercurialis , Tournef. (l. c., 481), was still 
cited Ricinocarpos , Boerh., by implication now only so far as the 2-coccous 
African species was concerned. 1 This arrangement, though immediately 
convenient, did not alter the facts that the African portion of Ricinokarpos , 
Boerh., belongs to a genus apart from Mercurialis ; that it is the American 
portion of Ricinokarpos , Boerh., which alone agrees with Boerhaave’s generic 
definition, and was alone entitled to Boerhaave’s generic name ; and that 
the identification of Ricinokarpos ) Burm., as based on the plant figured at 
t. 92 of the ‘ Thesaurus ’, with Ricinokarpos , Boerh., as based on Hartog’s 
species from Surinam, was not justifiable. Apart from these drawbacks, 
however, the establishment of Acalypha , Roy., made the situation intelligible ; 
all that was required to regularize it was the formal transfer, as A . Ricinocarpos , 
of Hartog’s Surinam species to the genus of which Royen had made it the 
basis. Unfortunately when, in 1753, the opportunity for this arrived, Linnaeus 
omitted the Surinam plant from the first edition of the ‘ Species Plantarum ’. 
When, in 1764, he did deal with Hartog’s plant, instead of referring it to the 
1 The object Linnaeus had in view when he adopted Royen’s genus Acalypha appears to have 
been the suppression of a generic name which was exposed to the risk of ambiguity. Kuntze (Rev. 
Gen. PI., ii. 615) has, however, interpreted the action of Linnaeus differently. According to 
Kuntze, Royen allowed Linnaeus to use him as a ‘dummy’, while ‘ die Verdrangung von Ricino- 
carpus Burm. durch Acalypha L. “Royen” war ein offenbares Unrecht von Linne gegen seinen 
friiheren Chef Burmann The facts of the case do not, however, seem to bear out this somewhat 
severe conclusion. 
D d 2 
