18 
TIIE J0U11NAL OF BOTANY 
(Trails. Linn. Soc. ii. 335; 1794). “Mokokf” is admittedly a 
Ternstrcemia , and was figured in 1835 bv Siebold and Zuccarini 
(FI. Jap. 148, t. 80) under the name T. japonica. Thunberg’s 
reduction of Cleyera to Ternstrcemia, and bis previous citation of 
an undoubted species of Ternstrcemia as a synonym of C. japonica 
have led to the conclusion that Cleyera Tliunb. was a synonym of 
Ternstrcemia. That this is erroneous is evident from bis generic 
description, which included the characters “anther® liirt® ” and 
“stylus filiformis.” Siebold and Zuccarini (I. c. 149) pointed out 
that Thunberg had confused two species under Cleyera , and they 
applied the name Ternstrcemia japonica to “Mokokf” and Cleyera 
japonica to the other species. They recognized (/. c. 154) that 
Thunberg’s generic description had been drawn up from the latter, a 
fact which seems to have been overlooked by recent writers. Their 
statement that the specific description referred solely to “ Mokokf ” 
is incorrect, since the phrase “bores axillares, unus, duo vel tres, 
peduneulati ” agrees with C. japonica (Sieb. et Zucc. t. 8L), and is 
inconsistent with T.japonica (t. 80), which has the “intercalary” 
inflorescence (Parkin in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. xlii. 512 ; 1914) 
characteristic of Ternstrcemia. 
Cleyera Tliunb. is, in fact, identical with the genus described by 
Bentham (Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. PI. i. 183 ; 1862) under the name 
Cleyera I)C., and C. japonica Tliunb. is the same as C. japonica 
Sieb. et Zucc. (FI. Jap. i. 153, t. 81). No confusion need have 
arisen had not later authors assumed that Thunberg was correct in 
citing “ Mokokf ” under C. japonica , and attempted to interpret 
Thunberg’s genus and species not by his description but by Ksempfer’s 
figure. 
The name Ternstrcemia japonica Tliunb. being a mere synonym 
of Cleyera japonica cannot legitimately be applied to any other 
species. Hence the Ternstrcemia commonly known as T. japonica 
should now be called T. gymnantheba ( Cleyera gymnanthera Wight 
et Am. Prodr. 87 ; 1834). 
2. Ekotettm and Fjrezteba. 
Starting from the assumption that Cleyera Tliunb. was a synonym 
of Ternstrcemia , Fawcett and Bendle (/. c .) have suggested that the 
name Eroteum should be used for the genus typified by E. theceoides 
Sw. But, as shown above, Cleyera Tliunb. is Cleyera DC. There¬ 
fore, “ presuming that the Old World species, Cleyera ochnacea DC. 
and others, are congeneric with the New World Ereziera theceoides Sw. 
and allies,” the earliest name for the genus is not Eroteum Sw. 
(1788), but Cleyera Tliunb. (1783). Fawcett and Bendle also 
recommended that the name Ereziera Sw. (1800) should be retained 
for the genus typified by Eroteum undulatum Sw. But Ereziera is 
antedated by Lettsomia Buiz et Pav. (1794). A further objection to 
the nomenclature proposed by them is that Ereziera Sw. was abso¬ 
lutely synonymous with Eroteum Sw. Swartz proposed a single 
genus to which he unfortunately gave two names, Eroteum and 
Ereziera. How, then, can he be cited as the authority for two 
different genera bearing these names ? 
