379 
Adenoclineae of South Africa. 
3-coccous part — of Ricinokarpos , Boerh. ; no part of Ricinokarpos , Boerh., 
is referable to Tragia , Linn. ; therefore Acalypha , Roy., is not referable 
to Tragia , Linn. As regards the latter conclusion : Linnaeus was com- 
pelled to treat Ricinokarpos , Burm., as represented by the species placed 
first in order by Burmann under his genus and figured at t. 92 of the 
‘ Thesaurus Zeylanicus ’. This plant is a member of the genus Tragia , 
Linn., which has priority ; the use of the name Ricinocarpos , Burm., advocated 
by Kuntze, is therefore precluded. 
It would have been satisfactory if Royen had emulated Burmann in 
an effort to retain the name Ricinokarpos for the genus which Boerhaave 
intended so to characterize. But a generous regret that this was not done 
cannot alter the circumstance that, even when the criteria recognized by 
Kuntze in respect of the determination of the priority of generic names are 
observed, the genus Acalypha , Roy., remains properly characterized and 
validly established. 
Additional South African Mercurialineae. 
The next Mercurialis after that of Hermann to be reported from South 
Africa was M. annua , Linn., recorded by N. L. Burmann (FI. Cap. Prodr., 
27 bis [31]) in 1768, and again by Thunberg (Prodr. PI. Cap. 78) in 1794 
and (FI. Cap. ed. Schult., 387) in T823. Muller in 1866 ignored both 
Burmann’s record of 1768 and the similar record by Baillon made (Adansonia, 
iii. 158) in 1862 ; Thunberg’s record he disposed of by reducing M. annua , 
Thunb. non Linn., to Leidesia capensis , Mull. arg. (DC. Prodr., xv. 2, 793). 
Had Burmann’s statement been of a general character, some confusion 
between M. annua and Leidesia capensis might well have been suspected 
and Muller’s caution in accepting this South African record of a European 
species would have been natural. But the statement is a precise one ; 
Burmann saw the Cape specimen of M. annua , Linn., in the herbarium of 
Oldenland, who, as we know from the elder Burmann, 1 gave especial 
attention to introduced plants already established at the Cape in 1737. 
As regards the treatment accorded to Thunberg it has to be observed 
that there is nothing in what Thunberg says of M. annua which could 
prevent his plant from being the Linnean one, and the only sheet of 
1 To his Thesaurus Zeylanicus the elder Burmann attached two catalogues of Cape plants. 
The first of these, already quoted, which occupies pp. 1-23, enumerates the Cape plants of Hermann ; 
the second, pp. 24-34, enumerates the Cape plants collected by Oldenland and by Hartog. The 
final page of this catalogue is devoted to Plantae Exoticae in Capite Bonae Spei deque laete ger- 
minantes ac in earum Patria. The fact that there is no Mercurialis enumerated in this catalogue 
of Oldenland’s Cape plants, and yet that there was a Mercurialis from the Cape among the specimens 
in Oldenland’s herbarium, leaves us with little doubt that Oldenland considered this Mercurialis to 
be only an exotic species in the Cape Peninsula. It is not mentioned in the actual list of exotic 
species alluded to. But this is not surprising; that list is confined to plants of economic or aesthetic 
interest, and does not include garden- or field-weeds like M. annua. 
