186 ANODONT^E,
gives the name P. Oederi as a synonj-m, he cites it as being first published in tlie 3rd
edition of Hornemann's Plantelwre ia 1821, or eight years later than the appearaneo of
}lis own name for the Swiss form, whereas if he had read the reference by liartniann on
page 156 of the volume of Vei. Ak. Ilandl. (for 1818) quoted by him, he must have
realized that the name P. Oederi there referred to had been in use prior to 1818.
Since the species was one fur which he himself was responsible, if ho knew that the
name P. Ocdm had been also applied to it, it was in a peculiar sense his duty lo
ascertain where and when the name P. Oederi first had appeared. Walpeks in 1844
followed Steven and perpetrated the curious misquotation already mentioned; Bektiiaji also
followed Steven in ]846. Neither Walpers nor Bentham quote Vahl's name, which may
therefore be assumed to have esi^apcd their notice. Bunge, on the other hand (181.7),
fleiiberatcly excludes Walilenberg's Scandinavian plaut without saying [Ledeh., Flor. lloss. iii,
ciOO) whore it should be located, and complicates matters still more by sayins that P. Oederi
of the Danish botanists is a plant from Iceland, and that it has all the filaments glabrous.
Now in the first place Wahlenberg's Scandinavian plant (there is a specimen of Wahlenberir's
iit Calcutta) has the anterior stamens hirsute, and certainly is the same as his Swiss
P . versicolor, of which there are also authentic specimens here; in the second place,
Oeder {Flor. Dan. i, 7) says his plant is from Norway, and does not mention Iceland
at all; finally, if the plant that is P. Oederi has glabrous stamens, then P. Oederi
should become a synonym of P. flammca, which Bunge has refrained from making it.
Tuuczaninw (1856) also rejects Wahlenberg's Scandinavian synonym, in this clearly
simply copying Bunge; he does not face any of these three difficulties to Bunge's note.
Tlie yoimger Reicbenhach's treatment of the question (1362) is more extraordinary still,
l i e acccpts Vahl's name, but gives the 1821 edition of Hornemann as its place of
publication. To obviate the necessity of palpably violating the law of priority, he
takes the opposite course from that pui-sued by Bungo, suppresses Wahlenberg's Swiss
synonym of 1813 (%. Helvet. 118), and says that that author's Scandinavian synonym
of 1824 [Flor. Suee. i, 389} is the earliest appearance of the name P. versicolor.
Steinikgee, whose careful critical revision of the European species of Pedicidaris is
the most recent (1887), has given the synonymy of this species less satisfactory
treatment than he has that of any of the other European ones. He begins by adopting
Vahl's name—but copies Reichenbach's error of quoting the 1821 work as its place of
first publication. He follows this error by copying Walpers' one of quoting Wulfen as
the author of a notico written by Hsencke, and immediately after gives Wahlenberg's name
for the Swiss plant—published in 1813-as a synonym for a name that he supposes
to have been only published in 1821. Steininger also adds "P. asplenifolia Bamut/.
non FloerJce" as a further synonym. As he does not say where Baumgarten fell into
this error, I have been unable to verify his citation.
To conclude: the earliest name is clearly P. Oederi Vahl, which appeared first iti
1806 and is thus seven years oldei than Wahlenberg's name, There is not now, and
there need never ha-ve been, the slightest dubiety about the identity of Vahi's plant.
As has been shown above, both it and the Swiss form have been equally mistukea
for P. jlamma, while both it and the Swiss plant hive been long known to be tlie
same thing. The name given by Wahlenberg has become perhajjs better known thun
Vahl's name, but not to so great an extent as to justify a deviation from exact
compliance with the law of priority, and Vaiil's name P. Oederi is therefore the one
that must in future be accepted.
EXCLUDED SPECIES.
E x c l u d e d and D o u b t f u l Species.
There is in the Calcutta Herbarium a gathering in leaf only of a very distinct species
70. Pedicularis sp. rhizomate lignoso ramoso foliis alternis radicalibus ca3spitosis
petiolatis petiolis 1-5—2'.5 cm. longis margine herbáceo prorsus dilatatis laminis 6—9 cm.
longis Ills 1-75—2-25 cm. latis pinnatisectii rhachi alatis supra omnino glaberrimis snbtus
petiolo nervisque parce hirsutis ceterum glabris segmentis 10—12-jugis subalternis obtusis
10 mm. longis his 4—5 mm. latis pinnatifidis et margine cartilagineo serrato-dentatis.
In alpibus Assami^e : —Miinipur boreali; in Sirohifurar, 8,000 p. s. m. Watt (n. G479) r
Tiiis is very distinct from any Indian species, and appears as if ifc must belong
either to the Eusiphonanthx or to the Ilypusipkonanthw subsection. Mr. Maximowicz^
who has very kindly examined it (in spite of its incomplete condition) at my request'
tells me that he cannot match it with any of the Chinese species, which ho knows so
thoroughly. He saya of it—" looks like a Siphonantha or (less so) a Comosait should
therefore be a spccies yet to be described.
P l a t e 35. B.—Pedicul aris sp. indica n. 70.
Specimen from Sirohifurar (Watt, n. 6l79).
There is one Indian plant that has to be mentioned as an excluded specics: —
Pedicularis? avas.\. Wall., Cat. 1007 (1828); Benth., Scroph. Ind. 52 (1835). Tlie
same species was issued as an Acanthaceous plant, which it is, by Wallieli ill the following
year. But tho identity o£ this mtli tliat Acanthaceous plant was not made public till
1876. Up to that date therefore the synonymy must be shown in a double column.
Pedicularis? avana Wall., Cat. 1007
(1S2S).
Smth., Scroph. Ind.
52 (183.Ò).
Synncma avaiium Bmtk., DO. I'rodr.
X, 538 (1846).
Adenosma biplicata Nees in Wall., Cai. 7146
(1839).
Wees m Wall., FI. As.
Rar. iii, 79 (1833).
Nees in DO. Frodi', xi.
68 (1847).
- — T. Ánders., Jour. Linti.
/Siic. ix, 454 (1867).
Cardanthera biplicata BenlL iu Can. 1>1. ii, 1074 (1876).
Cardauthera avana, C. 13. Clark in llook. f . , Flor. Bril. Ind. iy, 403 (1884).
In DC. Froir. xi, 68 (1847), Nees limits the genus Admosma so as to aelud» the species
tliat formed the type of Adenosma R. Br. [_Frodr. Flor. Nov. Soil, i, 442-8 (1810)1 As
Adenosnia Bnwn had just been reduced by Bontham [DO. Frodr. x, 380 (1846)1 to
STEMODii Linn., Nees felt at liberty to retain Brown's name for the genus thus limited
.eeing that Brown himself had in tho work quoted declared two Acanthaceous plants thai
still remained in tne genns to be in his opinion congeneric with the solitary Scronb,,]
anaceoos species taken as the type. Nees mentions however, for the first time in the
same place (DC. Frodr.67) the name aMiPA»TaBR. Ham., which he gives as 'synonymous
with Adenosma of Nees (not of Brown). ^