# Transactions of the Linnean Society of London/Volume 6/Remarks on the genera of Paederota, Wulfenia, and Hemimeris

Read October 7, 1800.
THE genus of Pæderota was first constituted by Linnæus in his Academical Dissertation entitled Plantæ rariores Africanæ, published at Upsal in 1760, and reprinted in the 6th volume of the Amænitates Academicæ in 1763. In the former edition the genus was called Hemimeris, in the latter Pæderota, and the only species there mentioned bears the trivial name of bonæ spei. This plant has never been well known to botanists in general. The original specimen probably remained in Professor Burmann's hands, along with the other plants described in the above-mentioned dissertation; but Linnæus, I know not at what period, obtained another, which is preserved in his herbarium with the name b. spei in his own hand, and which he afterwards described in the Supplementum as Hemimeris diffusa. Unfortunately he neglected to quote Pæderota bonæ spei as a synonym in that work, and his son, with all the materials before him, totally overlooked it; so that Professor Murray, and other compilers, give us the same plant under both names. Even M. De Jussieu seems not to have known this original species of Pæderota. His ideas of the genus are taken from the Buonarotta of Micheli, and the Pæderota lutea of Scopoli, the former of which is referred to Pæderota by Linnæus in the 2d edition of Sp. Plant, by the name of P. Biuonarota, and the latter is called in his 2d Mantissa, P. Ageria. These plants appear again in the Supplementum, with new and Improved specific characters, under the names of P. cærulea and P. lutea,. and their ​old denominations not being there quoted, each of them occurs twice in Murray's and Gmelin's editions of the Systema; but such repetitions are too frequent in both those writers to excite our wonder at present. M. De Jussieu observes, very justly in my opinion, that the Wulfenia of Jacquin agrees in genus with these last-mentioned plants. This being the cafe, and as they by no means agree with the original Pdderota, it would be befl to range them under that of .n'ulfenia, a name which has every poffible claim to be retained. Pivderota may very well be spared. The plant which firfl: bore that name was previoujly called Hemimerisy as I have already obferved, and is now fo denominated in the Suppkvientum^ along with two others that accord with it in genus. If the name IVulfenii^ fhould be refufed to the plants to which I would apply it, they muft be called Buonarotta^ merely on account of priority ; for I know of no other claim to fuch an honour in the Florentine fenator after whom Micheli named them.
The generic charaders oiWulfetila and Hcmimeris may be exprefljed as follows :
WULFENIA.
Diandr'ta Monogynlay next to Veronica. Corolla tubulofa, ringens. Calyx quinquepartitus. Capfula bilocii- laris, quadrivalvis.
The fpecies are, J. W. Buonarotta, caule foliofo, corolla labio fuperiore indivifo. 1. fF. Jgeria, caule foliofo, coroUae labio fuperiore emarginato. 3. IV. carinthiaca^ caule nudo, foliis crenatis.
HEMIMERIS.
DiJynamia Angiofpermiay next to Antirrhinum. Calyx quinquepartitus. Corolla rotata, refupinata, bafi gibbofa, hinc fiiTa. Filamcnta glabra. Capfula bilocularis.
The ​ The only species I have hitherto ascertained are the following:
1. H. fabulofa diandra, foliis oppofttis pinnatifidis, caule proftrato.
2. H. diffiifa, didynama, foliis alternis oppofitifque pinnatifidis, caule patulo,
3. H. moniana, diandra, foliis ovatis ferratis obtufiufculis, caule erefto.
4. H. urticifolia, didynama, foliis ovatis ferratis acutis, caule fufFruticofo, capfulis retufis. Celfia urticifolia. Curt. Mag. i.^j.
5. H. linearis, didynama, foliis lineari-Ianceolatis fubferratis, caule fufFruticofo, capfulis acutis. Celfia linearis. Jacq. Ic. rar. v. 3. /. 497. Curt. Mag. t. 210.
The three first I know only from specimens in the Linnsean herbarium. The diffufa is suspected by the younger Linnseus to be a variety of the fabulofay to which I can scarcely affent. It is not easy to fay which of the two rnay be the original Padercta bonce fpei. The specimen of Linnneus fo marked is the diffufa but he had not that before him when he wrote the dilfertation upon rare African plants, and it has certainly four stamina. If the number of stamina be constant, tQ fabulofa (which has but two) muft have been the real Pederota. The montana is sufficiently distinct in habit and character from both.
The two remaining species are natives of Peru, and have for fome time been commonly known in our gardens as species of Cdjia, but certainly without foundation. The error originated with Profenbr Ortega, and he has been followed by Jacquin and Curtis against their own judgment, for neither of thefe plants has the habit or character of any Celfia. It is to be lamented that fuch erroneous names should be ignorantly given and heedlcfsly retained, as it is difficult to eradicate them when once applied to any very popular and ornamental plant. Thus a moll beautiful Cliekne has been lately ​lately brought from Spain by the specific name of ruelloides, and it is so called amongst us: but a more preposterous blunder was hardly ever made in botany, as those who know the plant, and can read Linnæus's Supplementum, p. 279, will readily perceive. With respect to the two species of Hemimeris in question, they perfectly accord with the generic character given above, with which also the Linnæan fabulosa and diffusa, (which I have carefully macerated and dissected), and to all appearance the montana also, perfectly agree. In their general habit and structure they also manifestly form altogether one natural genus.