A NEW BllITISH CALAMINTHA 
191 
citation : the plant does not stand in the Flora Hispanica as 
C. officinalis var. villosissi ma, but as a distinct species, C. bcetica 
Boiss. & Reut. Touching Dr. Druce’s remark that “ on a Taraxacum 
standard it may deserve specific rank,” it may suffice to observe that 
the authors of the standard Floras of the two countries where the 
plant has long been known to occur (Willkomm & Lange, and 
Battandier & Trabut) treat it as a species ; Briquet also gives it the 
same rank as the other members of the group. Boissier’s var. villosa 
was published merely as a hairy variety of C. officinalis , and in the 
Pugillus, where he subsequently described C. bcetica in considerable 
detail, it is not referred to. The identity of the two plants is based 
on exsiccata sent out by Boissier under the earlier name. 
Dr. Druce makes a further mis-statement of less importance 
in saying that I discovered this plant in 1922. In Proc. Linn. Hoc., 
December 1922, from which alone his information could have been 
obtained, it is stated that I found it in 1900, and again in 1912.— 
H. YV. P. 
ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF BIGNONIA. 
/ r ; , 
The extensive segregation to which the Linmean genus Bignonia 
has been subjected has left the present-day application of the name a 
matter of dispute. Bureau (Monogr. Bignon. 44, pi. 7, 1804), 
without designating a type, figured Bignonia unguis L.” (i. e., B. 
unguis-cati L.) to represent the genus, and is followed by Bureau & 
Schumann (in Mart. FI. Bras. viii. pt. 2, 281, 1897), who restricted 
the name Bignonia to B. unguis-cati and its close ally B. exoleta 
Veil., but without advancing any reason for this course. In 1913 
Rehder (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 1913, 2G2) selected B. rcidicans L. 
as the type of the genus, mainly on the ground that the plate of 
Tournefort (Inst. i. 164, pi. 72, 1700), the original author of the 
name Bignonia , represented this species, at least so far as the flower 
and floral parts are concerned. The same species was also designated 
as type of the genus in 1913 in the second edition of Britton & 
Brown’s Illustrated Flora (iii. 237). 
Mr. Sprague, on the other hand, in an interesting paper on “ The 
Type-species of Bignonia ” (Journ. Bot. lx. 236-238,1922), maintains 
that the species figured by Tournefort (except as to the fruit) was 
B. capreolata L., and that this species is therefore the type. In 
a later note (op. cit. 363-364), referring to Relider’s article, 
Mr. Sprague reaffirms his conviction that Tournefort’s illustration of 
the flower and floral details represented B. capreolata. Mr. Sprague 
states that certain minor details of corolla form, calyx shape, and 
character of disk shown in Tournefort’s plate agree with these parts of 
B. capreolata and not of B. radicans. After comparing Tournefort’s 
plate with Bureau’s beautiful figures, as suggested by Mr. Sprague, 
and also with herbarium specimens, I am not able to follow him in 
his belief that the species figured is definitely B. capreolata. In the 
first place, it must be remembered that Tournefort’s figures are some-t 
