NOTES ON JAMAICAN T E R N S TIME MI AC E /E 
53 
antedated by the name Eroteum, which must be kept up, unless an 
International Conference makes Cleyera a nomen conservandum. 
We do not agree with Sprague that there is any necessity to 
change the name Ternstroemia japonica to T. gymnantliera. 
2 . Eroteum and Freziera. 
As botanists have considered it advisable to divide the genus 
originally called Eroteum (Sw. Prodr. 85, 1788) into two genera— 
one with a long branched style and hairy anthers, the other with 
st} r le wanting and glabrous anthers—the question arises which of 
Swartz’s two species should be considered the type-species. If we 
take the full description of the genus written by Swartz for Schreber’s 
8th edition of the Genera Elantarum, 807 (1791), the wording 
clearly points to Eroteum tlieceoides , as described in FI. Ind. Occ. 
972 (1800), e.g. in both the anthers are said to be “ subrotundse, 
minutse,” and the style in Schreber is said to be “ erectus, staminibus 
fere longior, subulatus, apice trifidus,” which is repeated for E. thece- 
oides, except that instead of “fere” we read “ paulo ” ; whereas in 
E. undulata the anthers are said to be “ lanceolatae, filamentis lon- 
giores,” and the style “ subconicus, altitudine petalorum.” Swartz 
also gives a drawing of E. tlieceoides , t. 19. This species must 
evidently be regarded as the type-species of Eroteum. Humboldt 
and Bonpland described (PI. vEquin. 22, 1808) four or five new species 
from Peru congeneric with E. undulatum , retaining them under 
Freziera. Be Candolle included both of Swartz’s species and Hum¬ 
boldt and Bonpland’s, but by his generic description of the style as 
“ brevissimus ” he really excludes E. tlieceoides. 
Choisy (in Mem. Soc. Phys. Hist. Hat. Geneve, xiv. 1855) 
cleared up the confusion between the constituents of the two genera 
by pointing out that Freziera tlieceoides was congeneric with the 
species described under Gleg era (he renames it Cleyera thceoides), 
which name he retained; while he used the name Freziera for the 
group of species which includes the original Eroteum undulatum Sw. 
\E. undulata Sw.) and the allied Hew World species. A similar 
distinction and nomenclature are maintained in Bentham and Hooker's 
Genera Elantarum. 
This position is not in accordance with the Pules. If it is agreed 
to pass over the original Cleyera Tliunb., then Eroteum Sw. is the 
earliest name for the genus now generally known as Cleyera. If 
Cleyera is to be retained, then Eroteum Sw. must be used for the 
o-enus of which E. undulatum Sw. was the first described species ; that 
is, the genus now generally known as Freziera —unless Freziera 
finds a place in the list of nomina conservanda. 
A point of interest is—Where does Freziera date from? Hot 
from the original description by Swartz, where it is a nomen abor- 
tivum ; Swartz had no right to substitute a new name for his original 
o-enus Eroteum. Humboldt and Bonpland added several species 
congeneric with Freziera undulata, but their “observations ” (p. 2d) 
show that they retained the genus as Swartz defined it, merely 
extending it to include their new species. 
He Candolle included both of Swartz’s original species in his 
