The Moraceous genus Clarisia was described by Ruiz et Pavon in 1794 in ”Florae Peruvianae, et Chilensis Prodromus” p. 128. This generic name must be rejected, if it is not placed on the list of Nomina Generica Conservanda, as in 1792 there had already been published a genus of this name by Pedro Abat In the list of genera recommended for placing on the list of Nomina Generica Conservanda (Kew Bulletin 1935 pp. 341-544). Mr. Weatherby mentions Clarisia R. et P. I quote here what he writes on Clarisia Abat: „Placed by Sprengel, L. Gen. Pl. ed. 9, I. 202 (1830) in synonymy under Anredera Juss. (1789). He has apparently been followed by all subsequent authors who have noticed the name at all. I have not seen Abat’s publication. If the date is correctly given by Dalla Torre & Harms and the genus adequately published, Clarisia R. & P. must be conserved if it is to be retained. ”As far as can be judged from literature no botanists have seen Abat’s publication. This is not to be wondered, as Abat’s paper was published in a scarcely spread periodical. I have tried to obtain this periodical in the Netherlands, in London and Paris but nowhere I could get hold of it. Thanks to the kind assistance of Prof. Cuatrecasas of Madrid I could receive a copy of this paper and a photograph of the plate from the original in the library at Sevilla. Abat’s paper was published in ”Memorias de la Real Sociedad de Medicina, y Demas Ciencias de Sevilla, Tomo Decimo. 1792. pp. 418- 438”. The name of the periodical was cited by Sprengel as ”Acta etc.” The word ’Acta’ does not occur in the completely copied title of the periodical which I received from Prof. Cuatrecasas, so apparently Sprengel must have been mistaken. The publication is a communication made by Pedro Abat, Correspondiente del Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid, y Socio Botanico, to the Society mentioned in the title of the periodical. Abat begins his paper with a statement of the necessity of great exactness in the decription of plants which is of course still true and especially for the plants we are dealing with in this paper. Therefore I have started my present paper with the same words as Abat did nearly 150 years ago. In the first part of his paper, Abat gives an account of the literature dealing with his plant. He quotes the words of Hans Sloane on Fagopyrum scandens and concludes from Sloane’s description that it is the same species as he (Abat) demonstrated before the Society. Then he writes extensively on Linné’s Polygonum scandens L. His conclusion from the description of Linnaeus is that Polygonum scandens L. is not Sloane’s Fagopyrum scandens, though Linné placed the latter in synonymy under his Polygonum scandens. Sloane’s plant of which he shew a living specimen, is according to him quite different from Polygonum scandens L. from which he had brought a herbarium specimen.