394 
Prain. — The Mercurialineae and 
by these collectors themselves near Uitenhage ; the last is ‘ Drege 1867 a 1 : 
both of these are Mercurialis Zeyheri , Kunze. Sonder then made the limits 
of Adenocline sessilifolia natural by excluding Drege 1867; he also made 
the limits of Mercurialis bupleuroides natural by excluding Drege 1867. 
But he did so at the expense of his own Diplostylis serrata , which he clearly 
intended to be identical with Mercurialis serrata , Meisn. = Adenocline ovali- 
folia , Turcz. In reality D. serrata , Sond., is a mixture of A. ovalifolia , 
Turcz., and M. Zeyheri , Kunze (Drege 1867). 
In overhauling Adenocline in 1852, Turczaninow introduced some 
improvements. He deleted the spurious A. pauciflora , so that his A. Mer- 
curialis became strictly homonymous with Diplostylis caff r a . He removed 
Drege 1867 from A. sessilifolia, so that this species became strictly homony- 
mous with Diplostylis angustifolia. Turczaninow once for all set Drege 
1867, which so far had been the invariable stumbling-block, on a sound 
footing by treating it as the valid species that it is. But from this point 
onwards fortune was unkind to Turczaninow. He had not seen a specimen 
of Mercurialis Zeyheri , Kunze, and did not know, any more than Kunze 
himself did, that this is the species to which Drege 1867 belongs. Turcza- 
ninow had not seen any specimen of M. serrata , Meissn. ; he, therefore, did 
not know that Meissner’s plant is his own A. ovalifolia . Nor did Turcza- 
ninow see all the specimens of Diplostylis serrata , Sond. ; he therefore did 
not know that Sonder had confused under this name two unmistakable 
species. But Turczaninow did possess a specimen of Drege 1867; he knew 
that Sonder had included this in D. serrata . In giving the name Adenocline 
serrata to Drege 1 867, Turczaninow only did what was natural. But, thanks 
to this misplaced reliance on Sonder’s judgement, Turczaninow’s A. serrata 
happens to be that portion of Sonder’s Diplostylis serrata which is not the 
original Mercurialis serrata of Meissner. In the matter of Adenocline humilis 
Turczaninow was even more unfortunate. Sonder had guessed that Mer- 
curialis tenella , Meissn., was only M. triandra , E. Mey., and therefore not an 
Adenocline or Diplostylis at all. Turczaninow mistook this surmise for a 
record of observation and failed to notice that M. tenella , Meissn., from the 
description, must be A. humilis , Turcz. Thinking that M. tenella really 
was disposed of, Turczaninow had only M. bupleuroides , Meissn., left to 
account for. He fell a victim to the temptation and identified M. bupleu- 
roides with his own A. humilis ! 
The confusion that had grown up between the publication of Adenocline 
by Turczaninow in 1843 and that author’s revision nine years later is, it will 
be seen, less serious than at first sight appears, and has been due to Meissner 
and Sonder and Turczaninow having been unable to compare each other’s 
material. The confusion which has taken place since 1853 is less easy to 
account for. Baillon in 1858 substituted for the specific names ‘ Mercurialis ’ 
of Turczaninow, and‘ caffra ’ of Meissner and Sonder, the older name ‘acuta ’ 
