The Scientific Notebooks of German Orchidologist Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Kränzlin

t. 134 Pterostylis concinna × reflexa v. intermedia

Royal Society of Victoria

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FLORA OF AUSTRALIA, NO. 7

BY ALFRED J. EWART, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S.

(14th November, 1907).

Reprinted from Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, Vol. XX. (New Series), Pl. II. ISSUED MARCH, 1908.

[PROC. ROY. SOC. VICTORIA, 20 (N.S.), PT. II., 1907.]

ART. XI.—Contributions to the Flora of Australia, No. 7.1

BY ALFRED J. EWART, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S.,

Government Botanist and Professor of Botany at the Melbourne University.

[Read 14th November, 1907.]

Latin in Systematic Botany.

At the last Botanical Congress, held at Vienna in 1905, on the whole a salutary check was administered to the objectionable tendencies of modern systematists in certain quarters, especially as regards frivolous changes of name, and it is, in fact, a matter of regret that the list of protected names was not greatly increased. On the other hand, it is impossible to follow Mr. Maiden2 when he states that botanists are as bound by these laws as by those of their own country, and must follow these laws whether they approve of them or not. For this to be requisite the Congress would need to be a really representative one, to which all botanists sent elected representatives. At present it is a fortuitous concourse almost soley of systematists, among whom the local interests of the country in which the Congress is held are always unduly strongly reprensented. So far as I am aware, botanists from the south of the Equator were entirely unrepresented, and plant physiologists and anatomists were conspicuous by their absence. Yet the man who has intimately investigated the structure and properties of a plant has a greater claim to decide that its name shall not be altered than the systematist whose interest in the plant largely ceases as soon as it is labelled, and is often only revived when a chance of relabelling it occurs.

1 No. 6 in Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict, 1907, vol. 20, p. 76. 2 Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales, vol. xl., 1906, p. 74.

Flora of Australia 129

diameter when fully expanded. Calyx divided to about the middle, the five segments with broad bases and more or less bluntly acuminate tips. Other features much as in A. quadrifidum. Seeds apparently reddish-brown, but otherwise as in A. glabrum.

The absence of any scurfy tomentum at once distinguishes these two species from A. quadrifidum. In addition A. Rodwayi has broader ovate or lanceolate leaves, the calyx is less deeply divided, the flower larger and more bulky at its base. This, with the less deeply divided calyx and the shape of the leaves distinguishes the plant from A. zygophylloides. A. glabrum is told by its glabrous wiry stems, smaller flowers and calyx deeply divided to the base.

I. Tyson, Salt Marsh, W. Australia, 1893; F.A. Rodway, M.B., dried up salt lake, Dedemona, W. Australia, 1907.

ANGIANTHUS HUMIFUSUS, Benth., var. GRANDIFLORUS. (Compositae).

In the last contribution to the Flora of Australia, No. 6, this was erroneously given as a new variety by the accidental omission of a proof correction.

CASSINIA LAEVIS, R. Br. (Compositae)

The record from C. French, Goulburn R., under the above heading, in Contributions to the Flora of Australia, No. 6, should apply to Cassinia arcuata, R. Br., wrongly recorded as C. Theodori, F. v. M.

CONOSPERMUM POLYCEPHALUM, Meisn., var. LEIANTRUM, Benth. (Protoaceae)

Diels and Pritzel1 raise this variety to specific rank as C. leianthum, Benth. The material at the National Herbarium, a part only of which appears to have been examined by Diels and Pritzel, shows conclusively that there is no reason for this change. It is impossible to lay down any clear line of demarcation

1 Fragm. Phyt. Austr. Occid., p. 141