Prain. — The Mer curia lineae and 
388 
Tragia villosa , Thunb. (Prodr. PL Cap., 14, and Flor. Cap., ed. Schult, 37), 
while U. capensis, Thunb., is altogether different. The specimens of Urtica 
in herb. Thunberg, kindly lent for study by Professor Juel, show that under 
U. capensis there are two sheets written up as ‘ capensis a ’ and ‘ capensis ft ’ 
respectively. On the ‘ capensis a ’ sheet we find two plants ; one of the 
two, which agrees with the description, is Australina capensis , Wedd. 
(Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 4, i. 212 (1854)); the other is Droguetia Thunbergii , 
N. E. Brown (Kew Bulletin, 1913, 80). 1 The sheet marked ‘capensis ft’ 
has only Australina capensis , Wedd. 
The relationship of Leidesia to Seidelia , and of both to Mercurialis , we 
have already learned ; the three genera taken conjointly constitute a distinct 
group, the Mercurialineae, 2 characterized by its valvately partite male 
calyx, its simple styles, and its 2-coccous capsule. 
Review of Paradenocline. 
The genus Paradenocline was proposed by Miiller in 1866 (DC. Prodr., 
xv. 2, 1 1 41) to include a South African species with all the facies of 
a Leidesia , which nevertheless had to be excluded not only from that genus 
but from the subtribe Acalypheae in which Leidesia is placed, because the 
species in question has a quincuncially imbricate male calyx and has 
2-partite styles. So far as can be ascertained, this species was first collected 
by Drege in the neighbourhood of Paarl. From E. Meyer we learn that Drege, 
when he first found the plant, thought that he had met with the European 
Mercurialis annua. In 1843 E. Meyer issued the Paarl specimens of this 
species under Drege’s name. But Drege collected the same plant at Addo 
in Uitenhage, and we learn from specimens of this gathering written up in 
herb. Liibeck, that this is the species to which E. Meyer intended to restrict 
the name M. tricocca , also issued for the first time in 1843. Actually, how- 
ever, in 1843 Meyer included under his M. tricocca not only this 3-coccous 
species but both of the species of Leidesia in which the capsules are 
2-coccous, the styles are simple, and the male calyces are valvately 
partite. From Sonder we learn that some time prior to 1850 Sprengel 
1 Droguetia Thunbergii , N. E. Brown, is similarly mixed in herb. Thunberg with Urtica caffra , 
Thunb. (Prodr. PI. Cap., 31 ; Flor. Cap., ed. Schult., 155). Under this species, again, two sheets 
have been written up as ‘ caffra a ’ and ‘ caffra j8 ’ respectively. The ‘ caffra a ’ sheet has Droguetia 
Thunbergii , N. E. Brown, only ; with this plant, however, the description of V caffra does not 
tally. The ‘ caffra /3 ’ sheet has a plant with which Thunberg’s description of U. caffra exactly 
agrees. This plant is another species of Australina , which must therefore be known as A. caffra. 
When Weddell monographed the Urticaceae he had not seen this type specimen in herb. Thunberg, 
because he suggested (DC. Prodr., xvi, 1, 60) that U. caffra , Thunb., may be Fleurya peduncularis, 
Wedd., and because he has described the species which is U. caffra , and which therefore must be 
known as Australina caffra , under the name A. acuminata , Wedd. (Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 4, i. 212 
(i 854 ))- 
2 The name Mercurialineae is here employed in a more restricted sense than that understood by 
Pax (Nat. Pflanzenf., iii. 5, 46). 
