Those Long Latin Names
The modern genus for Hypophyllocarpodendron (under-leaf-fruit-tree) is obviously Mimetes. The significance of the name is at once apparent: each flowerhead (and thus the fruit) is borne under a leaf which is modified to form a cowl or hood over the flowerhead.
The two species are:
You might be interested to know that Mi hirtus, with its tubular flowers and lacking a conspicuous "fruit-under-the-leaf", was considered, with Aulax and Protea, to be a "Lepidocarpodendron".
And finally, the last plate for Conocarpodendron reads: Cone-fruit-tree; leaves rigid, narrow, tip three-toothed, red, flowers golden. It is obviously (leaves secund, stems creeping) what we now call Leucospermum hypophyllocarpodendron.
So how did this Conocarpodendron end up with the name that was used to describe a Mimetes?
The answer must simply be that Linnaeus was careless. Looking for names for all the then known plant species could not have been easy! Linneaus decided that cucullatum was an acceptible name for both Boerhaave's illustrations of Hypophyllocarpodendron (! - imo Protea ipso magnis variabili etc.?), and thus decided to use the name for a member of Boerhaave's Conocarpodendron. Just how the name was meant to apply to the Leucospermum in question is anybody's guess. Could the flowers be borne under the leaves on the ground? John Rourke suggests that Boerhaave's plate was the only flowering "material" that Linnaeus saw! Do you have any ideas?
A last parting shot at Boerhaave: Which species in all the plates illustrated (24 in all) have unsatisfactory identifications? Please write and phone in your answers - we will include the best in the next issue.