382 
Prain. — The Mercurialineae and 
one, an Adenocline , differs sufficiently from M. bupleuroides to justify the 
use of the name M. Zeyheri. 
Besides the Urtica capensis , already referred to, which is MercuHalis 
annua , Linn., there was distributed a second Urtica capensis (Un. It. 814, 
Eckl.), which is Mercurialis procumbens , Linn. We learn from Ecldon and 
Zeyher, in 1847 (Linnaea, xx. 213), in connexion with Zeyher’s 3844 from 
Table Mountain, that Sprengel had altered the name of this second Urtica 
capensis to Mercurialis capensis , which, they further suggest, may be only 
E. Meyer’s M tricocca. It is not what was intended by E. Meyer as 
M. tricocca , because its capsules are 2-coccous. But it was in practice 
mixed by E. Meyer with M. tricocca , and we learn from Sonder that 
Sprengel fell into the converse error and mixed M. tricocca with it. In 
removing these misapprehensions Sonder, in 1850 (Linnaea, xxiii. hi, 112), 
provided brief diagnoses, restricting the name M. tricocca , E. Mey., to the 
plant on which, in 1866, Muller was to base his genus Par adenocline , and 
similarly restricting the name M. capensis , Spreng., to the plants on which, 
in 1866, Muller was to found his genus Leidesia . Sonder at the same time 
added to our debt by adequately diagnosing, as M. pumila, Sond., one of 
the species on which, in 1858, Baillon was to base the genus Seidelia. But 
Sender’s work is not free from defects. In the first place he overlooked 
the fact that the characters of M. tricocca are essentially those of his own 
genus Diplostylis (he., 113), which is a homonym of Adenocline , Turcz. 
Again, though he did notice that his M. capensis appeared variable, he did 
not observe that it really included two species. Lastly, through some mis- 
apprehension, he identified M. tenella , Meissn., which belongs to his own 
3-coccous genus Diplostylis , with M. triandra , which is a 2-coccous species 
most closely related to his own M. pumila. 
In 1858 Baillon based on M. triandra , E. Mey., and M. pumila , Sond., 
the valid Mercurialineous genus Seidelia , and treated all the species of 
Mercurialis enumerated by Krauss in 1845 as members of Turczaninow’s 
genus Adenocline. In so doing he used Thunberg’s specific name * acuta ’ 
for the species which Turczaninow had termed A. Mercurialis, but main- 
tained Turczaninow’s name for the species termed M. tricocca by E. Meyer. 
As to this Baillon further followed Meyer’s practice and included (£tud. 
gdn. Euphorb., 457) along with M. violaefolia , Kunze, which is an Adeno- 
cline , both of the species on which, eight years later, Muller was to found 
the genus Leidesia. 
The year 1862 was marked by the appearance of Baillon’s classical 
paper (Adansonia, iii. 169-76), in which all the forms reported from South 
Africa that are referable to the Mercurialineae and to the Adenoclineae 
were once more treated as species of Mercurialis. The action was less 
drastic, perhaps, than it appears ; Baillon admitted the existence, within his 
widened genus, of five distinct sections. In dealing with the species from 
