384 
Prain. — The Mercurialineae and 
All four 2-coccous forms deviate from Mercurialis proper in having 
alternate leaves and in being normally monoecious. Two of the four, which 
have firm opaque leaves, only 2-3 anthers, and quite glabrous capsules, 
differ further from Mercurialis in having cruciately 4-valved mature anthers. 
These became the basis in 1858 of the valid genus Seidelia , Baill. The 
remaining two, which have flaccid, pellucid leaves, 4-7 stamens with only 
2-valved anthers, and hispidulous capsules, though generically distinct, had 
not so far been separated either sectionally or generically from Mercurialis, 
except when in 1858, and then, perhaps, only by accident, Baillon referred 
them to Adenocline } 
One of the 3-coccous forms with a 2-partite style and imbricate male 
calyx-lobes agrees with the two preceding forms in having flaccid, pellucid 
leaves and in being monoecious. This was, in 1858, referred by Baillon, 
but only in company with the two preceding forms, to Adenocline ; it was 
not so treated by Turczaninow, and Sonder, whose Diplostylis is a homonym 
of Adenocline , left this monoecious species in Mercurialis as M. tricocca . 
The remaining six 3-coccous forms with 2-partite styles and imbricate 
calyx-lobes have firmly herbaceous leaves and are dioecious. They con- 
stitute the genus Adenocline , Turcz. (1843) : Diplostylis , Sond. (1850). 
None of the three forms with flaccid, pellucid leaves have ever been 
confused with Seidelia . They have, however, been much confused in books 
and in herbaria among themselves. In three instances — by E. Meyer under 
the name Mercurialis tricocca , by Sprengel under the name M. capensis , and 
by Baillon under the name Adenocline Mercurialis — all three have been 
treated as belonging to the same species. More often, however, the exis- 
tence of two species among the forms with flaccid, pellucid leaves has been 
admitted. In literature — as, for example, by Sonder and by Baillon — it 
has been the custom to distinguish between a species with 2-coccous cap- 
sules, termed M. capensis , and another species, with 3-coccous capsules, 
termed by Sonder M. tricocca , by Baillon M. violaefolia. As a consequence, 
the species described by Thunberg as Acalypha obtusa has never, in any 
published work, been separated from the species described by Linnaeus as 
Mercurialis procumbens. In collections, however, the confusion has been 
somewhat different. Nearly allied as Acalypha obtusa and Mercurialis pro- 
cumbens are, they are easily sorted out and have rarely been laid into 
herbaria side by side. On the other hand, in spite of their differing as 
regards their stamens — central in Acalypha obtusa, peripheral and 2-seriate 
in M. violaefolia ; their capsules — 2-coccous in the former, 3-coccous in the 
latter ; their styles — simple in the first, 2-partite in the second ; and their 
male calyces— valvately partite in one, quincuncially imbricate in the 
1 As Adenoclme Mercurialis , which Baillon attributed to Turczaninow, but which did not include 
Turczaninow’s species so named, though it did include Mercurialis procumbens , Linn., Acalypha 
obtusa, Thunb., and Mercurialis violaefolia , Kunze. 
