The Scientific Notebooks of German Orchidologist Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Kränzlin

[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 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

Flora of Australia. 139

Bailey admits that his S. Benthami, and his var. minor of S. virginicus probably form the var. pallida of S. virginicus, recognised by Bentham, and even a cursory examination of the material at the National Herbarium would have shown that the new species was untenable.

Given as new to New South Wales (L. Cudgellico) by Maiden and Betche, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.Wales, 1906, Vol. XXXI, p. 739.

TUNICA PROLIFERA (L.) Scop., var. VELUTINA (T. VELUTINA, Fisch. and Meyer). (Caryophlyllaceae).

This naturalized alien was recorded by Mueller as T. velutina in Vict. Nat. X., p. 145, 1893, and by Reader as T. polifera, in Vict. Nat., XX., p. 88, 1903. Both species are given as valid in the Kew Index, and in Boissier's Flora Orientalis]]. T. velutina differs from T. prolifera mainly in having leaves with smooth edges (instead of minutely toothed), hairy internodes (instead of glabrous), longer leaf-sheaths and smaller seeds. None of these features are constant; hairy speciments may have rough-edged leaves, and some speciments of T. velutina have the lower leaves minutely toothed entirely or in part. The length of the leaf-sheath may vary on one and the same specimen, as may also the size of the seeds. Hence the species must be reduced to a variety of T. prolifera, joined to that species by intervening forms. Most of the Victorian specimens belong to the variety velutina, but some of Mueller's are intermediate in character.

Mount Ararat, Nov., 1883, D. Sullivan; Upper Murray River, C. French, 1886; Clyde Mts., N.S.W., Oct., 1888, W. Bauerlen; Delatite, 1890 and 1891, Rev. R. Thom, Goulbourn River, 1892, W. F. Gates; near Lake Urana, N.S.W., 1894, G. Luehmann, Jnr.; near Seymour, 1902, Mrs. F.M. Reader.