Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/332

 306 NOTES ON THE INDEX KEWENSIS. Chamacistus Oeder 1761 (not only S. F. Gray 1821 !) = Loiseleuria Desv. 1813. Conyzodes Moehr. 1736 (not only DC. 1837!) = Carpesium L. 1741/6. Corallodendron L. 1735 (not only Hall. 1745 !) = Erythrina L. 1737. Corymhorcliis Tliouars 1809 (not only Bl. 1855 !) = Corymbis Lindl. 1847 " Tliouars 1822." Draco Heister 1748, Ad. 1756 (not only Crantz 1768!) = Dracaena ''Vand. 1762." Guajava Moehr. 1736 (not only Ad. 1763 !) = Psidium L. 1737. lonthlaspi Sieg. 1736 (not only Ad. 1763 !) = Clypeola L. 1737. Iria Pers. "Rich." 1805 (not only Hedw. 1806 !) = Fimbristylis Vahl. 1806. Iridorchis Thouars 1809 (not only Bl. 1858 !) = Oberonia Ldl. 1830. LUiastrum Ludw. 1737 (not only Link 1829 !) — Paradisea Mazz. 1811. Meadia Catesby 1748 (not only Mill. 1752 !) = Dodecatheon 1751. Nymphodes Ludw. 1737 (not only Med. 1789 !) = Limnanthemum Gm. 1769. Fentaqonia Moehr. 1736, Sieg. 1737 (not only Vent, ex Steud. 1841 !) = Specularia Heist. 1748. Pentagonocarpiis Targ.-Tozz. 1748 (not only Pari. 1872 !) = Kosteletzlda Presl. 1831. Potmnopithys L. 1735 (not only Ad. 1763 !) = Elatine L. 1737. Sagus Rumph. 1741, Ad. 1763 (not only Gaertn. 1788) = Metroxylon 1783. Securidaca Sieg. 1736, Ludw. 1737, non L. 1742 (not only Mill. 1752 !) = Securinega DC. 1805. Urceolaria Mol. 1782 (not only 1810!) = SarmientaR.&P.1794. The date 1737 of Linnaeus Hortus Clififortianus is to be corrected always in 1738 ; see Rev. gen. pi. page cxxxiv and the date 1809 of R. Brown's Monograph of Asclepiadaceae in Mem. Wern. Soc. i. is also wrong; for that paper was not published before 1811 as indicated in R. Brown's Misc. Works (german edition). But Hoy a and Dischidia R. Br. were already published 1810 in R. Brown's Prod. fl. Nov. Holl. and have a doubtful not yet settled priority towards Sperlingia and Colyris Vahl 1810. Velloso Flora fluminensis appeared 1835, not 1827. The Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, has given 1895 a presidential address to the Botanical Section of the British Association,"- also with remarks on nomenclature, saying scarcely anything new thereabout, if not the following remark : expresses any opinion of the validity of the names themselves." That must not be forgotten, for in regard to the honest and partly by Mr. Rtapf in " Bot. Centralblatt " 1896 : 44-50. [See also Journ. Bot. 1896, 114.]
 * But it is a mistake to suppose that .... it (the Kew Index)
 * Reprinted in " Erythea" 1896 : 5-15, and in german translation but only