39i 
Adenoclineae of South Africa. 
with an Adenocline raised at Leipzig from South African seed (Linnaea, xx. 
54). It was still unknown to Sonder when in 1850 (Linnaea, xxiii. 113) he 
published as Diplostylis , Sond., the genus already established as Adenocline , 
Turcz. 
So long as this neglect of his more accurate observation only involved 
the inclusion of Adenocline in Mercurialis , Turczaninow was under no 
obligation to re-enter the field. Lamarck in 1796 (Encyc. Meth., iv. 120) 
had recognized as a species of Mercurialis a plant with alternate leaves and 
3-coccous capsules; Endlicher in 1840 (Gen. PL, mi) had founded a dis- 
tinct section for its accommodation. All the South African species which 
Meissner, Krauss, and Kunze had treated as species of Mercurialis agree 
with M. alternifolia , Lamk., as regards their capsules, and all but one do so 
as regards their phyllotaxis. So long as they could feel that an imbricate 
in place of a valvate calyx, and 2-partite in place of a simple style were 
negligible differences, Meissner and Krauss and Kunze were at liberty 
to conclude that any Adenocline might be referred to Endlicher’s Mer- 
curialis , sect. Trismegista. When, however, in 1849 Bentham based on 
Lamarck’s species the genus Micrococca (Hook., Niger Flor., 503) the raison 
d'etre of Endlicher’s Trismegista disappeared, and, notwithstanding the 
advocacy by Thwaites and others of a different view, the soundness of 
Bentham’s judgement has remained unshaken. The establishment of Micro- 
cocca f Benth., rendered the separate generic recognition of the South African 
‘ Trismegistae ’ of Meissner, Krauss, and Kunze inevitable, though it is 
possible that when Sonder in 1850 proposed his genus Diplostylis he was 
as unconscious of this fact as he was of the circumstance that Turczaninow 
had appreciated the situation seven years before. The publication and 
acceptance of Diplostylis made it, however, incumbent upon Turczaninow 
to point out the true state of affairs. This he did in 1852 (Bull. Soc. Imp. 
Nat., Mosc., xxv. 2, 179, 180). 
In 1858 Baillon (£tud. gen. Euphorb., 456) accepted Turczaninow’s 
genus and included it in Mercurialis violaefolia , placing Adenocline in his 
Dysopsideae, a group which includes Acalypha, midway between Mercurialis 
and Seidelia. In 1862 Baillon modified this view and widened the limits 
of Mercurialis so as to include Adenocline , Turcz., in the first instance 
(Adansonia, iii. 159) as a distinct section, but, as an afterthought ( 1 . c., 1 75), 
as an integral portion of Endlicher’s section Trismegista. In 1866 Muller 
accepted the genus as limited by Turczaninow and Sonder (DC. Prodr., xv. 
2, 1139), placing it and Par adenocline in a distinct group, the Adenoclineae, 
which he referred to the sub-tribe Hippomaneae. The genus was accepted 
by Hooker in 1868 (Harv. Gen. S. Afr. PL, ed. 2, 338), by Bentham in 
1880 (Gen. PL, iii. 310), and by Pax in 1890 (Nat. Pflanzenf., iii. 5, 49). 
Hooker did not discuss the limitation or the affinities of Adenocline. 
Bentham disapproved of Muller’s treatment; like Baillon in 1838, he 
