Mus. Paris 3: 388. 1843; Grisebach, in Mart. Kuntze's treatment was adopted by J. K. F1. Bras. 12(1): 42. 1858; Benth. & Hook. Small in his treatment of the Malpighiaceae Gen. Plant. 1: 257. 1862; Niedenzu, in Engl. for North American Flora (25: 150. 1910) & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(4): 61. 1890, but by scarcely anyone eke. and in Engler, Das Pflanzenreich IV, 141: Although the treatment by Kuntze and 386-460. 1928. Small is certainly logically justifiable it is Banisteriopsb C. B. Robinson. Recognized doubtfully ad\,antageous to th~stability of by Small, North Amer. Flora 25: 132. 1910; nomenclature. The transfer of the name Standley, Trees and Shrubs of Mexico, Contr. Thryallis from one genus to another in the U.S. Nat. Herb. 23: 575. 1922; Britt. & same family is bound to be confusing. The Wilson, F1. Porto Rico (1921); Cuatrecasas, ado~tionof Thrua1li.s hlart, and Galvhimia Webbia 13: 485-512. 1958. Cav. by Niedenzu in his great monograph of the hlal~iahiaceae in Das Pflanzenreich Proposed by C. V. MORTON(U.S. National * L Museum, Washington, D.C.). (1928) is bound to hale a continuing influence. There will not be such a monograph of the family again in the near future. if ever. Therefore there is reason to (195) Proposal to conserve the generic conserve the generic names in the sense of name Thryallis hlart. Niedenzu, elen though these were not correct 4239. Thryallis Mart. Nov. Gen. & Sp. 3: by our current Code. There is the further 77, t. 230. Jan.-Jun. 1829 (hlalpighiaceae), point that Thryallis hlart. has given its name nom. cons. prop. to a subtribe of the family, the Thryallidinae Type species: Thryallis longifoliu hlart., Niedenzu (in Engl. & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen- loc. cit. fam. 3(4): 53. 1890) and Galphimia Cav. has Thryallis L. Sp. P1. ed. 2, 554. 1762. Type: similarly gilen its name to the subtribe Gal- T. brasiliensis L., loc. cit.: Nom. rej. prop. phimiinae Niedenzu (loc, cii.). Argument: Linnaeus described the genus Thryallis with the single species T. brasilien- Niedenzu (Das Pflanzenreich IV, 141: 574. sis, and thus there is no doubt about the 1928) makes much of the fact that Linnaeus typification of the genus. When hlartius describes the ovary as monogynous, which described T. longifolia [and a second species is not true of Thryallis Mart. or Galphimia T. htifolia, op. cit. t. 2311 he did not intend Cav. However, an error of observation in a to describe a new genus, as is implied by diagnosis does not, fortunately, invalidate a Niedenzu in calling the genus Thryallis hlart.; name. If this were an important error making he definitely ascribed the genus to Linnaeus the genus Thryallis L. unrecognizable, then and was merely describing two new species of course it would have to be placed among that he thought belonged there. However, the genera dubia (not in the hlalpighiaceae subsequent authors, beginning with A. H. L. at all, for these do not have monogynous de Jussieu, have found that the two species ovaries). But this is not the case, for the described by Martius are actually generically specie's Thryallis brasiliensis L., the sole type different from the original Thryallb brasilien- of Thryallis L., is recognized by Jussieu, sis L. Rather irrationally, Jussieu retained the Grisebach, and Niedenzu as a common name Thryallis for the two species of hlartius Brazilian species under the name Galphimia and referred the original Linnaean species to brasiliensis (L.) Juss. If the species can be the later genus Galphimia Cav. (1799) as identified and recognized then certainly the Galphimia brasiliensis (L.) Juss. (in St. genus based on it is identifiable and recogniz- Hilaire, F1. Bras. hlerid. 3: 71, t. 178. able, even though it does contain an error 1832). Such a procedure is contrary to in the diagnosis. As a matter of fact there is our current Code but nevertheless the treat- some doubt that the Linnaean T. brasiliensis rnent by Jussieu has been generally adopted is properly associatecl with this species of since, notably by Grisebach, Bartling, and Galphimia, which makes the rejection of Niedenzu. The first notice of this improper Thryallb L. all the more important. switch of the name Thryallis from one genus In his recent work on the hlalpighiaceae of to another was macle by Otto Kuntze, who Colombia, JosC Cuatrecasas (Webbia 13: 550. restored Thryallis to its original sense, with 1958) suggested that it would be well to Galphimia Cav, as a synonym, and proposed conserve Thryallis Xlart. and Galphimia Cav. the new name Hemsleyna to replace Thryallis for convenience, but he did not make a sensu hlart. (Rev. Gen. PI. 1: 88. 1891). formal proposition to this effect. However, if Thryallis Mart. is conserved as hex ~roposed as Microsperma is to Microspermum and, then Galphimia Cav. becomes a correct name, p-rhaps, even Hooker did this somewhat un- since it has a different type from Thryallis wittingly. Bibliographically, however, Micro- L., and does not need conservation. sperma Hook. is a fact and, in view of the Thryallis Mart. Recognized by A. H. L. examples given in Art. 75, I.C.B.N., 1961, its Jussieu, Ann. Sci. Nat. 11, 13: 321. 1840; status as a homonym must be reconsidered Griseb. in Mart. F1. Bras. 12(1): 33. 1858; as it affects the availability of the generic Benth. & Hook. Gen. P1. 1: 254. 1862; Nie- name Etccnide. denzu in Engl. & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. It readily can be demonstrated that Micro- 3(4): 68. 1890; Niedenzu, Arb. Bot. Inst. spermu (genitive Microspermatis) is a third Akad. Braunsberg 5: 10. 1914: Niedenzu, in declension noun while Microspermum Engler, Das Pflanzenreich IV, 141: 574. (genitive Microspermi) is a second declension 1928. noun, hence the names are formed on dif- Thryallis L. Recognized by Kuntze, Rev. ferent roots. The word Microsperma (derived Gen. P1. 1: 89. 1891; Rose, Contr. U.S. IVat. from Greek, micros, small, and sperma, seed) Herb. 12: 7. 1909; Small, No. Amer. F1. 25: was introduced and incorporated into Latin 150. 1910; Standley in Trees and Shrubs of (ca. 425 A.D.) without any change (non- Mexico, Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb. 23: 568. Latinized) as a neuter noun, although 1922. Hooker erroneously considered it to be of Proposed by C. V. MORTOXand Josh feminine gender. Microspermum (of the same CUATRECASAS(U.S. National Museum, Wash- derivation) is a Latinized noun of the same ington, D.C.). (neuter) gender but of much later incorpora- tion into Botanical Latin than Microsperm. When used in specific combinations of neuter gender these generic names, e.g., Microsperma (196) Proposal to conserve the generid lobattcm Hook. ("M. lobata," erroneously) name Eucnide Zuccarini, 1844, against and A4icrospermtim nummtilariifolium Lag., Microsperma W. J. Hooker, 1839 (both seem rather similar. The name Microspermum Loasaceae) . of Lag. merely is a Latinized form of 5384. Eucnide Zucc. Delectus Seminum in Microsperma of Hook., and through this Horto R. Botanico Monacensi Collectorum Latinization, which does not seem to be Anno 1844,4th unnumbered page, "Monacl$i, necessary, Microspermum came to be in the 28. Dec. 1844," original at Conservatoire et second declension while Micrcwperma is in Jardin Botaniques, Genkve. the third. Type species: Eticnide bartonioides Zucc., loc. cit. Since these genera are in different families, A genus of about 11 species, distributed it can be argued that their names, therefore, from southwestern United States through are not likely to be confused. If it really is hlexico (including Baja California) to true that the names given in Art. 75, I.C.B.N., Guatemala. as examples "not likely to be confused," are, Microsperma Hook. Icones Plantarum 3: in fact, not confusing, e.g., Momchaete, pl. 234. 1839. Monochaetum; Desmostachys, Desmostachya, Type species: Microsperma lobatum Hook. etc., it follows, then we guess, that Micro- ("Microspermu lobata"), loc. cit. sperma and Microspermtim also ought not to The monograph of Loasaceae by Urban & be confusing. Since the name Microsperma Gilg (Monographia Loasacearum. Nova Acta was rejected in 1900, and by subsequent Akad. Leop.-Carol. 76: 1-370. 1900), the monographers, presumably because it was too basic work on this family for over a half- similar to Microspermum, a strong precedent century, was published before the first Rules already is provided for the preservation of of Botanical Nomenclature following the Eucnide. Some of the names among the Vienna Congress. In this work Microsperma examples given in Art. 75 inay not be con- Hook., 1839, was rejected because of the fusing because they are so well known and name Microspermum Lagasca, 1816, in established through their use by mono- Compositae, and the matter has rested on this graphers. In the case of Microsperma, how- decision. ever, the name is all but unknown in Loasa- It seems unlikely that a taxonomist now ceae because monographers have preferred would knowingly publish a generic name so Eucnide. similar to an already existing generic name Proposed by: W. R. ERNST(Washington,