Abstract:
Homalomena plants in general, but more especially those native of Malay (Malay Peninsula) and the Sunda Islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo and small islands within the area), vary a great deal in all their vegetative characters, and to a certain extent in their reproductive characters also, the variations depending not only on the age of the plant but also on such environmental conditions as soil, exposure, flooding and humidity. The greatest variability is noticed in species which grow on stream sides and on rocks near waterfalls and streams, where they are subject to a graded intensity and frequensy of flood, spray and to a certain extent, of isolation. This ecologic diversity within the plants of the same species or variety makes an analysis of the genus into its constituent species and varieties an extremely difficult problem. A key that would cover all these variations would become too bulky to be of any practical use. The task of analysing the genus into its species would be much simplified if specimens of as many Homalomena species as possible were collected again to show the range of variation, and if their spathes and flowers and fruits were preserved in spirit. While naming and arranging Malayan species of this genus, I noticed that some systematists have not taken due cogniznace of their range of variability, so that, in some cases, either one and the same name has been used for different species because their specimens agree in colour (e.g. H. purpurascens) or many names have been bestowed on the same species because the specimens studied showed marked differences among themselves concerning colour, size, shape of leaves (e.g. H. obliqua, H. Griffithii, H. Kingii, etc.). Evidence is not lacking to show that some species are purely "geographical", that is, one and the same species is made to pass under different names according to the country of origin of the specimens to be named, (H. paludosa and H. propinqua ; H. coerulescens, H. rubra, etc.). In order to clear the nomenclatural tangles of the Malayan species, therefore, I was obliged to study many non-Malayan species, but not so many as to consider this study of mine as a monographic revision of the Indo-Malaysian Homalomena. I am much indebted to the Directors of the Herbaria at Kew, Leiden, and Buitenzorg for their co-operation either by sending on loan some of the authentic specimens in their herbaria, or by supplying either information concerning the types or copies of such original descriptions as were not available in Singapore. In citing the exsiccatae, I have omitted all reference to the herbarium when the specimens cited are conserved in the Singapore herbarium, but have inserted appropriate abbreviations to indicate the other herbaria, the initials "HB" having been adopted for the Buitenzorg Herbarium (Herbarium Bogoriense). For the nomenclature adopted in this paper for types, see Gard. Bull. Straits Settlements IX part 3, 1937 pp. 285 - 309.

Abstract:
The contractions C.F. (Conservator of Forests) and SFN (Singapore Field Number) are used to indicate the collections made by the Forest Department, S.S. & F.M.S. and the Botanic Gardens, Singapore respectively.  Both of these Departments use a single series of field numbers which serve also as Herbarium numbers.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
The bulk of this paper is composed of the results of my investigations of species of Hopea belonging to the Bracteata and Dryobalanoides groups. These results are somewhat cataclysmic, involving the addition of ten names to the list of Malay Peninsula species, but as I have been fortunate in being able to study all the critical material concerned, it is hoped that reasonable stability in the nomenclature of Hopea will result. In preparing the botanical notes for Desch's Commercial Timbers of the Malay Peninsula : I, the genus Shorea (Mal. For. Rec. 12 (1936) ) I endeavoured to straighten out the nomenclature of our species as far as possible at the time, but, for one reason or another, some species received tentative names only.In the last paper in this series a few of these species were given more permanent binomials, while in this paper most of the remainder are considered. The recent aquisition of flowering herbarium material of Shorea atrinervosa, S. lumutensis, and S. Meadiana, has made it possible to describe these three species, all of which are in Eushorea group, while additional field and herbarium study has revealed the desirability of changing the names of status of several other species. One of the name-changes involved is that of Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff. to S. ovalis (Korth.) Bl. I mention this in particular, because it illustrates very nicely the sort of problem the systematist has frequently to tackle in this region. S. ovalis is based upon a sterile specimen of seedling leaves which differ very markedly from those of the mature tree. Thus, before the species could be interpreted it was essential, firstly, to see the type specimens, and secondly, to have representative collections of immature stages of this form for comparison. The first of these precepts is generally appreciated, although not always followed by the systematist, owing to impatience or necessity : but to the second, I think, inadquate attention is given. The much despised, sterile, immature specimen is frequently the key to interpretation of early, obscure species, which play such havoc with accepted nomenclature if they are left too long in obscurity, and it is therefore very desirable that the intelligent collection of such material should be encouraged. The description of only three new Bornean species is given in this paper, namely Shorea leptoclados, S. Flemmichii, and Dryobalanops Keithii. Although little is offered for publication, the study of Bornean dipterocarps has made good progress during the year. For this we are particularly indebted to Messrs. H. G. Keith and C. O. Flemmich, the forest officers in North Borneo and brunei, respectively. In addition to continuing to pursue their extremely energetic policy of collection of herbarium material, these gentlemen organized most interesting and comprehensive tours for me, on which I had the invaluable opportunity of studying the dipterocarps in the field. Dr. van Slooten's visit to Kepong, during April, 1938, did much to stimulate systematic research on the dipterocarps, and his generosity in placing at my disposal the valuable early Dutch collections is greatly appreciated. I am also indebted to the Forest Botanist of the Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun, for sending on loan his entire collections of Shorea, Hopea, and Balanocarpus; to the Director of the Forest Research Institute, Buitenzorg ; and to numerous other botanists and forest officers whose assistance, if less spectacular, is no less valued. These notes are arranged as in my previous papers, the concluding paragraph under each heading being brief precis for the benefit of Malayan forest officers. In previous papers, under citation of specimens, I have followed Foxworthy in prefixing numbers in the Federated Malay States Forest Department series with the letters "C.F." I propose, in future, to substitute for this prefix "Forest Dept. F.M.S." The original specimens in this series are, in all cases, preserved in the herbarium of Forest Research Institute at Kepong, for which I intend to employ the contraction "Kep." proposed by Lanjouw in Chronica Botanica 3 : 347 (1937).

Abstract:
In proposing amendments to the Rules, I make the following distinctions in names : valid and invalid, priorable and impriorable, legitimate and illegitimate.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
Throughout the Malayan region, from Sumatra to New Guinea, there are two vollage-trees that are called in Malay "nangka" and "chempedak". The first is better known as the Jack ( from its Indian name "jaka"): for the other we must at present borrow from the Malay beause there is no alternative. In Malaya we also have a wild form of Chempedak that is scattered in the high forest throughout the mainland from the lowlands to an altitude of 4,000ft: it is called "Bangkong" or, in Johore, "barok"but only the first is well-known and that only in the middle of the country. I shall refer to it as the Wild Chempedak. Now I use these vernacular names purposely because, until these pages have been read, I do not see how anyone, be the botanist or not, European or Asiatic, can know what are the specific differences between the plants or what may be their botanical names. The best recent descriptions of them are those given by Bakhuizen van den Brink in Ochse's two books. There are, however, about two dozen distinctions most of which have not been described and it appears that a post-Linnean study of the Chempedak-fruit has never been made, leastways not published: indeed, for what one may read about it in botanical literature, the Chempedak may be likened to a Dodo. The most informative and authoritative descriptions are those on the "Nanka" and "Tsjampedaha" written by Rumphius in 1690 though not published until 1750 (Herb. Amboin. tom. I.) and that on the "Tsjakamaram" published by Governor Rheede in 1682 (Hort. Malab., III), though, being pre-linnean, one would assign to them only a historical value. As for the wild Chempedak, what is yet written concerning it is little more than the record. Since I began this investigation, however, I have been fortunate in finding a fruiting tree in the East of Johore, several such trees by the Tahan River in Pahang. I have thus been able to study the Wild Chempedak critically. In the first part of this paper I have compared these plants as fully as possible and, in the second part, I have argued what must be their correct botanical names. As the results are somewhat momentous and I have no doubt that what I have discovered will not be acceptable to many, I have investigated the problem with the greatest care. For nearly 150 years the Jack has been called Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. but the name was changed recently to A. integra (Thunb.) Merrill without any reason. In checking the alteration, I found that the original descriptions of both names referred to the Chempedak and I can now add that the type-specimen of both is the Chempedak. The name A. integra or, correctly, A. integer which has been used in error for the Jack must now be given to the Chempedak and for the Jack one must resuscitate its earliest legitimate synonym which is A. heterophylla Lam. or, correctly A. heterophyllus. It is evident that not merely has the botany of these common plants being neglected but no systematist has ever referred critically to the original description of A. integer or A. integrifolia and the type of both names has never been re-examined: oranges and lemons, as it were, have been confounded. For the Wild Chempedak I have made the new variety A. integer var. silvestris.

Abstract:
When King's monograph of Ficus appeared fifty years ago, there were six species of Synoecia. Eleven others have since been described, one from Formosa, eight from Philippines and two from Borneo. That from Formosa, F. terasoensis, has already been identified with the Philippine F. megacarpa. I now find that F. megacarpa is a leaf-variety of the widespread F. callicarpa and that five more of the Philippines novelties have been misplaced in Synoecia: four belong to Eusyce, and one has already been transferred to Urostigna. Of these eleven, there remain, as proved species, only two from the Philippines, namely F. Bordenii and F. cataupi, and one from Borneo, F. tawaensis: concerning F. Simiae, of Borneo, I am uncertain (p. 145). In 1932 and 1933, the late Mr. C. E. Carr, F.L.S., collected for seven months on Mt. Kinabalu in British North Borneo. At my request he made a special study of wild figs, taking careful field-notes on the colours of the receptacles and preserving material in spirit as well as dried. He collected five species of Synoecia, four of which I describe as new in this paper, namely F. barba-jovis, F. Carri, F. dens-echini and F. tulipifera. The importance of this magnificent collection was at once evident from my own studies on the Malayan species; it has led me to revise the subgenus. A fifth new species, F. grandiflora, I describe from a collection of Mr. amd Mrs. J. Clemens, also from Kinabalu. I am obliged also to make four new varieties of F. callicarpa. When thus pruned and extended, the subgenus contains 13 good species, two doubtful species (F. Simiae and F. singalana ) and four varieties. To the descriptions, themselves, I have added several critical diagnostic characters, particularly of the flowers and leaves, that have been overlooked but without which the affinity of the species cannot be ascertained. Indeed, previous descriptions of the species convey little idea of their decisive character. I have arranged the species in what seems to be their natural order (p. 95), but our knowledge of the subgenus is very imperfect. That the number of species could have been doubled in the last ten years and that all these novelties should have come from one part of British North Borneo reflect sadly on our ignorance of the flora of large areas of the Malay Archipelago. Because they are big climbers, the species have doubtless escaped the attention of field botanists, for no other sort of plant is more difficult to collect. The uncertain specificity of F. callicarpa and F. punctata shows, too, the need of many more collections of these common plants from such countries as Sumatra, Borneo and Celebes, Palawan, Timor, Flores and the Moluccas. There is undoubtedly a variation afoot which suggests the persistent evolution of the species. In spite of its expansion Synoecia, as understood by King, remains a most natural subgenus. Its area of distribution must also indicate the natural limit of the greater part of the Malaysian flora (p. 91). When the distribution of the species is better known it will provide some critical evidence for the history of the Archipelago. For the completion of this revision I was permitted to borrow the rich collections in the Herbaria at Buitenzorg, Manila and Calcutta, and I express my thanks to the Directors of these institutions, to Dr. D. F. van Slooten of Buitenzorg, Dr. E. Quisumbing of Manila and to Mr. J. D. Srinivasan of Calcutta, for their unstinted assistance. I have to thank also Mr. C. E. C. Fischer, of Kew Herbarium for kindly examining the type-specimen of F. Scratchleyana at the British Museum, and Dr. T. Sata of Taihoku Imperial University, Formosa, for a specimen of F. terasoensis. In the citation of collections under each species only the collections that I have examined are mentioned.

Abstract:
Two recent papers, one on Epipogium by Dr. T. A. SPRAGUE and Miss M. L. GREEN (Kew Bull. 1937, pp. 475 - 476) and the other on Pterocarpus by Mr. H. K. AIRY-SHAW (Kew Bull. 1937 pp. 477 - 479), have created what seems to me to be an undesirable precedent for validating botanical names by reference to pre-1753 literature. This procedure, at one time considered legitimate, was later rejected in order that the Linnean genera might retain the sense given to them in Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) - often an impossibility if reference by LINNAEUS to pre-1753 literature were admitted as valid.  That to revert to this procedure now would violate the provision of the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (ed. 3, 1935) and lead to many difficulties is clearly demonstrated by a consideration of the two above-mentioned cases.

Abstract:
In Species Plantarum (1753) under the generic name Bombax, LINNAEUS described three species: B. ceiba, B. pentandrum and B. religiosum. The last two were soon transferred to two different genera, Ceiba and Cochlospermum, yielding the new combinations Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. and Cochlospermum religiosum (L) ALSTON respectively. No one has disputed these transferences; consequently the genus must be typified on B. Ceiba L., the only original species now remaining in it. But this view concerning the typification has been contested as illicit, and moreover it goes against the lectotype-species recommended in the Rules. Now this lectotype-species, B. malabaricum DC., was published in 1824, many years after the genus and its original three species; and if it is accepted as the lectotype for the genus, botanists will have to reject Bombax L. (1753) sensu strictissimo with B. ceiba L (1753) sensu stricto as the lectotype, and to accept Bombax L. (1735) sensu International Rules (1935) with B. malabaricum DC (1824) as the standard species. A claim has also been made that, though Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDLICHER (1832) and Gossampinus HAM. (1827) are rival names to Bombax L. (1753) sensu International Rules (1935), there are no such rival names for Bombax L. (1753) sensu strictissimo with Bombax Ceiba L. as the lectotype, except Eriotheca SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) and Bombacopsis PITT. (1916), which generic names, apart from their being little used and younger than Bombax, cannot be considered as being absolute synonyms of Bombax L. sensu strictissimo. Since any change in the lectotype-species of Bombax affects the nomenclature of some species and genera of Malayan importance, I have enquired into the typification of the genera Bombax, Gossampinus and Salmalia. The results show: (1) that the typification of Bombax made by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (Metel. 1832), and later by Dr. BAKHUIZEN (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. VI, 1924, pp. 161 - 240 ), is the correct one; (2) that the typification recommended in the Rules cannot be accepted; (3) that, unless the evidence produced below is wrong, the name Gossampinus cannot be maintened except as a synonym of Ceiba; and (4) that Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) is the legitimate name for Gossampinus HAM. sensu BAKHUIZEN (1924). The reasons for these conclusions are set forth below.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
This paper deals with rather a motely collection of species. In the first place I have tackled certain problems that have arisen in the course of preliminary botanical study in anticipation of wood-technological work on Dipterocarpus and Hopea from the Malay Peninsula. Thanks to the good work of Dr. van Slooten, the botany of Dipterocarpus is in reasonably good order, and with the notes here supplied on D. gracilis Bl. and D. chartaceus Sym. there is not much more essential critical work to be done on our species at this stage. With Hopea we are less fortunate. In this paper I have tackled one of the major problems connected with H. Pierrei and other species in the section Dryobalanoides, but there is yet much to be done in this rather difficult section of the genus. Next I have given a note on the Richetia group of Shorea, the object of which is to bring together a group of species of obvious natural affinity. This involves the transfer of several species of Balanocarpus to Shorea, with concommitant name changes. I regret the necessity for these changes, but it is a necessity, and my apologies should rather be for not having made the changes sooner. A problem that is becoming more evident and pressing with increasing knowledge is that of the delimitation of specific and lesser groups. If, for example, we consider only the species occurring on the west side of the Malay Peninsula, we find the specific limits are on the whole clearly defined, and the variations within a species are insufficiently constant to suggest the presence of definable sub-species, varieties, or other forms. We were to extend our investigation to the whole of the Malay Peninsula, things would not be quite so simple and, were the whole possible range of distribution of our dipterocarps considered, the delimitation of species would become a very acute problem. For example, there are several dipterocarps in Brunei that, on the usual morphological evidence, are clearly much more closely related to certain Malay Peninsula species than to any other described forms. Yet in some character or characters, possibly vegetative ones usually considered of little importance, they do differ distinctly and constantly. Should these Brunei trees be considered as species distinct from their Malay Peninsula counterparts; as varieties, forms, or some lesser groups; or are the differences so slight as to be unworthy of definition? These are obviously questions which can be adequately answered only in the light of very extensive knowledge of concepts and variations of groups within the family; premature decisions are likely to necessitate undesirable alterations in the future. Some problems with practical issues involved, however, cannot be postponed indefinitely, and one such problem, concerning Shorea assamica, is tackled in this paper. The problem of specific definition arises again in this paper in connection with Parashorea malaanonan and its variety here described as var. tomentella. P. malaanonan introduced another matter of general interest, conveniently described as "the treatment of doubtful interpretations". For example, I am faced with deciding whether or not to accept Merrill's interpretation of Blanco's Mocanera malaanona. I do not consider Merrill was justified in his interpretation, but the evidence is insufficient to prove him wrong. In the circumstances, and because the name Parashorea malaanonan is now well established in botanical and forestry literature, it seems desirable to accept Merrill's interpretation. But the position cannot be considered satisfactory, and it seems appropriate here to plead with those who undertake interpretations of this nature to treat the names as nomina dubia or nomina ambigua unless the evidence is incontrovertible. The descritpion of new species from Borneo, commenced in the last paper of this series, is continued here, the following species being described and figured - Shorea acuminatissima, S. xanthophylla, S. sandakanensis, and S. Smithiana. The paper is concluded with a description of Vatica diospyroides (one of several interesting new dipterocarps from Dr. Kerr's Siamese collections) and a note on two dipterocarps collected by the Oxford University Exploration Club in Borneo but omitted from the collection submitted to me in 1934 (vide Gard. Bull. S.S. 8 : 1 ). I should like to thank the many botanists and forest officers who have continued to give me their valued assistance and co-operation. I am also indebted to the Director of the Bureau of Science, Manila who afforded me the opportunity of studying the Philippine collections of dipterocarps during a visit to Manila in December 1935, and to the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew who again extended to me the hospitality of the Herbarium during my leave in 1936.

Abstract:
When Kuhn published the original diagnosis of the genus Teratophyllum in 1869 he included in it the bipinnate species previously known as Polybotrya articulata J. Sm. and Polybotrya Wilkesiana Brack. These differ notably in several characters from the other species of the genus; so much so that when I prepared an account of Teratophyllum in 1932 (this Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 277-304) I excluded them as possibly referable to a distinct genus. Copeland has included them in Lomagramma, but all known species of Lomagramma have characteristic features of spores and venation which are quite different from those of the two species in question ( this Bulletin, Vol. 9, p. 194). I have now examined a number of specimens, and have come to the conclusion that the best treatment is to unite them to Teratophyllum as proposed by Kuhn. His daignosis however omits a number of important points, and I have prepared a new one which includes what seem to me the essential features of the genus. The genus as so defined consists of two sections. The first and larger section comprises those species dealt with in my former paper; the second section has hitherto not received adequate description, and I give below as full account of its species as the material at present available allows. I am grateful to the authorities in charge of various herbaria for the loan of specimens, or for permission to examine specimens. The herbaria in question are cited as follows: Brisbane (Br.), British Museum (B.M.), Buitenzorg (B.), Kew (K.), Philippine National Museum (M.), Singggpore (S.), U. S. National Herbarium (W.).

Abstract:
Since the main object of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, ed. 3 (1935) is to ensure simplicity and finality in the names and to prevent more than one intepretation to a given name sensu stricto, it is unfortunate that there should exist a good deal of misconception and dissatisfaction over the Rules. But, for the existence of this state of affairs, the Rules themselves cannot be enitrely exonerated from blame. The terms valid and legitimate with their respective derivatives, which have a great importance in botanical nomenclature, have define and used equivocally in the Rules; and some nomenclatural points, where definite instructions are absolutely needed to avoid confusions and equivocations, are left ambiguous. The result is that practices contrary to the spirit of Rules seem admissible under the letter of the Rules. Already in a small footnote in the Gardens' Bulletin, S.S. Vol. VIII, 1935, p. 341, I first drew the attention of botanists to the need of making a clear distinction between the two terms, legitimate (= legal) and valid. In the same publication  (1.c. p.336), I pointed out the necessity of prohibiting the acceptance of a newer interpretation of a name, the type of which is not exrant, without showing any adequate botanical reasons for the rejection of earlier interpretation. But as the nomenclatorial laws are of very great importance to systematists, and as in neither of my previous communications have I developed my ideas on the subject to any great length, I make no apology to revert to it here.

Abstract:
Not many years ago, when I first became interested in systematic botany, I experienced considerable difficulty in comprehending the full implication of the terms "Type" and "Co-Type". And although systematic boatnists have now accepted the principle of the "Type basis Concept", a perusal of recent taxonomical papers combined with a personal inspection of the labelling of specimens in some of the well-known herbaria in Europe leads me to conclude that systematists are not yet agreed on a uniform system of naming both type specimens with their duplicates as well as those specimens that are almost as valuable to taxonomists as the type themselves. This disagreement is all the more surprising when one realises that systematists would be the first to admit the value of uniformity in the naming of type specimens for taxonomic reference. So great, however, is the confusion at present reigning concerning the nomenclature of some kinds of types that it is more than bears out the remark made by Dr. Agnes Chase, the well-known agrostologist, with reference to plant nomenclature in general. "Paradoxical as it may sound, it is the effort made during the last twenty years or so to bring about stability and uniformity in the use of names that has caused such a bewildering diversity". Now in the following summary I have gathered together most of the important terms used to designate type-specimens in the hope that this compilation may provoke the interest of herbarium-keepers in the matter. Obviously, by adopting a uniform system of naming the type material in their charge, herbarium-keepers would increase considerably the value of the specimens. For the sake of clearness I have had to define again a few old terms and add a few new ones. One apology I have to make: I cannot now cite authority for every one of the terms adopted in this paper. This is because the compilation was originally for my own instruction only. However, most of the terms here discussed can be found in Dr. B. D. Jackson's Glossary of Botanical Terms, 4th. Ed. (1928).

Abstract:
In the Journal of Botany, IXXXV, 1937, p. 78, Mr. T. A. SPRAGUE and Mr. A. W. EXELL have conjointly published a note drawing the attention of botanists to the significance of asterisks in LINNAEUS'S Species Plantarum ed. I (1753). They have shown that the use of asterisks was explained by Linnaeus himself in the following paragraph in the preface of the second edition of his work: "DESCRIPTIONS* tantum in obscuris adhibere necessem fuit, easque sine ambagibus. ut obtinerem compendium tironibus gratum". This paragraph without the asterisk, is the verbatim reprint from the first edition of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum. Consequently Mr. Sprague and Mr. Exell assume that the asterisk was accidently omitted after the word DESCRIPTIONES in the first edition of the work. They translate the paragraph as follows : "Only in doubtful cases was it necessary to cite descriptions, and those, straightforward ones, so that I might keep the handbook suitable for beginners." While agreeing with the explanation of the omission of the asterisk from the first edition of the Species Plantarum, I find myself compelled to dispute this translation and, therefore, to reconsider the conclusion of these authors on the significance of the asterisk. The translation appears to me misleading, because it is too free and removed from its context, and is therefore decidedly ambiguous. Linnaeus cited descriptions for nearly every species, but no one imagines that he considered them all doubtful. Is "compendium" really a "handbook" ? And what can be meant by the indefinite phrase "doubtful cases"? Are we to suppose that Linnaeus was doubtful of every species in the synonymy of which he employed an asterisk, or that he was merely doubtful of the unasterisked citations under it; or that he considered the citations with an asterisk to some extent doubtful though supplying a straight-forward descrition, while those without an asterisk were not at all doubtful? It is clear that the translation of the phrase "in obscuris" and the interpretation of the asterisk may be matters of considerate taxonomic importance, for on them will depend the procedure for interpreting a Linnean species with an asterisked citation. In view of this uncertainty I have undertaken an inquiry into the problem. My conclusions are these: 1. The paragraph should be read: "Only in the case of obscure plants was it necessary to indicate with an asterisk such descriptions as were straight-forward, so that I might keep the compendium suitable for beginners." Note :- (a) "obscure" does not mean doubtful (see section 2, subsection V, p. 314). (b) "Compendium" means the list of synonyms or citations, i.e. the synopsis of the species under consideration (see section 2, subsection V, p. 315). 2 LINNAEUS did not mean to invest the asterisks with the force of indicators for discriminating between the synonyms (citations). The asterisks were meant as a guide for beginners, and all synonyms, whether with or without an asterisk, were equally important for the experienced botanist. The evidence for my conclusion is set forth below.