The Scientific Notebooks of German Orchidologist Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Kränzlin

Mr. Babington on the Neottia gemmipara of Smith. 263

[following] extract from Mr. J. Drummond's original journal, where it appears under the date of August 3rd; no year is stated, but it must have been, in Mr. Hinck's opinion, 1809 or 1810: -"The following day I spent on Bear Island. I found nothing new upon it, but I found a very curious species of Ophrys, which I believe to be new, upon the main land opposite the western redoubt, growing in a salt marsh near the shore; it was in very small quanttity. I only found two specimens." One of these two is probably the specimen now preserved in Sir. J. E. Smith's Herbarium. From that time until recently the plant was not noticied by any botanist; but within the last few years it has been again discovered near to, but probably not in exactly, the original spot by Dr. P. A. Armstrong, a physician resident at Castleton Bearhaven, in the county of Cork, growing in small quantity within less than a mile of that town. He kindly conducted Mr. E. Winterbottom and myself to its station on the 30th of September 1843. We there saw about twelve specimens, several of which had been destroyed by cattle, and all the remainder were in rather an advanced state of flowering. This plant seems to be confined to a very few spots near to the sea-shore of that district, occupying the drier parts of rather boggy fields.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE. TAB. XXXII.

Fig. 1. Spiranthes cernua, natural size. Fig. 2. A flower and bract, magnified. Fig. 3. A flower with the sepals and petals removed, to show the column. Fig. 4. The column of Spiranthes autumnalis, to show the difference.

Flora of Australia 127

omission of the word Latin in Art. 37 renders Arts. 36 and 39 invalid, or at least renders their interpretation doubtful in many cases. By means of Art. 37, it would be possible in a roundabout way to force the acceptance of a new species according to Congress rules without a Latin diagnosis. Further, to change the name or authority for a new species because it had not been published with a Latin diagnosis would be to act in flat defiance of Art. 50, and other instances of rules who effects are difficult to harmonise might be given.

Nomina Conservanda.—It is greatly to be regretted that the time limit for change of name was put so far back as 1753, and that the list of nomina conservanda was not greatly extended. To give an instance. Anthistiria L. (Graminae), 1779, is changed to Themeda, Forst, 1775, by Haeckel in DeCandolle's Monograph and in Engler's Pflanzenfamilien. It is impossible to accept any such change of a Linnean name on such slender grounds as a four years' priority, when a name has been universally accepted for over 120 years. Questions of general convenience override any such claim in a case of this kind.

ACACIA ACCOLA, Maiden and Betche. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, 1906, p. 734. (Leguminosae).

This appears to be a narrow-leaved and broad-fruited form of A. neriifolia. A specimen from Bailey resembles Maiden's form more closely as regards the fruit and the funicle of the seed, but has the broader phyllodes of A. neriifolia. Probably the future discovery of other intervening forms will render advisable the reduction of this species to a variety.

ADENANTHOS CYGNORUM, Diels. Fragm. Phyt. Aust. Occid., p. 138. (Proteaceae).

This "species" is made to include the A. apiculata of Meissner, and the Drummond specimens of A. sericea. The species is, however, undoubtedly the same as A. sericea, Benth., and if Dr. Diels had seen No. 788 as well as No. 787, he would probably not have made this error. There can be no doubt that many accepted species of this genus will be ultimately reduced to varieties as the result of cultural observations, and hence great care