Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/327

NOTES ON THE INDEX KEWENSIS. 301 drudge" and compiler, as Mr. Jackson calls himself (and Steiidel, in this Journal 1892, p. 61) in reply to my dedications Steudelago and Jackso7iago, has not had proper thanks for his immense labour and will now be quoted often merely for his errors, e. g. for the punning name Helianthus decapitatus Jackson = H. decapetaliis L., Quiritia Jackson = Glycyrrhiza etc. Few samples more of species not named under the Kew genus-name: Nasella (15) = Oryzopsis ; Gynopachis (6) = Randla ; Colladonia (5) = Prangos ; Bulbostylis (5) = Fimhi'istylis ; Melantheopsis (4) = Breynia (but B. fruticosa Muell. arg. and B. patens Kolfe are missing); Leucothoe (2) = Agauria ; Amphistelma (13) = Vincetoxicum ; Eutoca (9) = Phacelia; Dufourea (5) = Breweria; Haemodictyon (26) = Prestonia ; Dimorphostacliys (9) = Panicum (but D. monostachya = P. monostachyum HBK.) etc. Also two valid homonymous species-names occur often in the Kew Index, one of which had to receive a new name, but did not get it, e.g. out of the "addenda": 2, Astragalus Candolleanus (for the second exists already another species-name : supervisa under Tragacantha), 2 Aster imhricatus (1 = ivorcesterensis OK.), 2 Derris ohlonga, 2 Eugenia polyantha, 2 Festuca gracillima & scabrella, 2 Gocchatia glutinosa, 2 Cocciiliis diversifolius, 2 Cleome micrantha, 2 Justicia elegans, 2 Ipomoea decora, 3 Hahenaria gracilis etc. Sometimes the aid of the Kew Staff was to be observed in the addenda," f. i. Ipomoea lilacina Hemsl. and ohlonga Hemsl. Biol. Centr. Am. Bot. ii. 391 ; but if we look at the referred place, we find only Ipomoea lilacina Schlecht. and I. oblonga Bth., and no description or indication that could permit to quote Hemsley or his error. Also many grass-names and new identifications probably out of the last not yet (till my manuscript went into the press) pub- lished part of Hooker's Flora of British India are inserted in the "addenda," but my Eev. gen. pi. published 1891 was put aside. Ehrhart's 100 nomina usualia 1789 Beitr. iv: 145-150 are names of species and not names of genera, but in the Kew Index they are treated as genera names. If Mr. Jackson had calmly read my Rev. gen. pi. pag. xxv he would not have given in the "addenda" these names of Ehrhart among genera-names; e.g. there exist for 13 species of Carex such names and they are no synonyms of the genus Carex as indicated in the Kew Index. They are strongly to be excluded as well as Dochnall's grapes names in the same generic fashion. It is very irritating to find in the " addenda" of the Kew Index e. g. Callithronium, Lonchophyllum and Xiphophyllum Ehrh. 1789 = Cephalanthera Rich. 1818 ; Cardio- phylliim Ehrh. 1789 = Listera R. Br. 1813 ; Mariscus Ehrh. 1789 = Mariscus Gaertn. (twice wrong because Ehrhart's species is Mariscus Haller 1742 = Cladium P. Br. 1756, whereas Mariscus Gaertn. is a mere section of Cyperus according to most authors) ; Trichophyllum Ehrh. 1789 = Eleocharis P. Br. 1810 ; Diplorrhiza, Triplorrhiza etc. Ehrh. 1789 = Hahenaria W. 1805 ; Monanthium Ehrh. 1789 = Piynchospora Vahl 1806. No one of these nomina usualia of Ehrhart can claim priority. In the "addenda" of the Kew Index are also inserted all names given in 1790 by Noronha, which however are according to my