ijf I g g s n
p »
c r
[Iridex.
'to” '™ “" Irides we are indebted lo the Honourable and Rev. Wm.
Herbert ol Spof f or l bI believe that no boarded Iris has yet been discovered in America, tbo only exception
being the alleged pubescence of the base of the petals (not sepals) in I. hexagona; Walt PI Car
a plant erroneously confonnded by Miehaux with Z Virginica. L.-(gerniiue snb-frigono apiculate,' caule
from T r “ “ " 'P ' " “'’»"!™«- »»'■)-'tl>creas hexagona. of which there are several varieties
irom^ lexas. New Orleans, and other parts of the sontliorn states (germine hexágono, caule indiviso, floribus
rnterronbus axillaribus. met.-) has not the forked stalk which distinguishes all the numerous vaiietics of the
om e r. J. lacustns is reported to have bearded sepals, but I suspect it will be found to have rather crests,
tee 1 . (mxstata, ot which it has precisely the aspect, a fact which I shall not have an opportunity of verifying
betöre the sprmg. I also doubt the truth of any American Iris having a fistulous stalk, that remarkable
feature being confined to the numerous varieties of I . Sibirica. I believe that Pursh’s statement, that the
Missourian J n s of Lewis has fistulous stalks, simply implies that, whereas that plant has been erroneously
named Sxbxrxca, Stbxrxca is fistulous, but I place no confidence in the fact as to Lewis’s specimen. I t is «ossí-
bl6 that I Tolmxeana, (mihi)* which in a dry state has much the aspect of I Sibirica v. sanguínea, may be
l/ewiss plant.t / . Sibmca v. sanguínea, bas been separated by Continental botanists under the name
hamatophxjlla, with an allegation that its scape is solid, a statement which is quite incorrect. It is certainly
a variety of Sibirica, having not only the fistulous stalk, but every other important feature of that
plant, especially the two gibbous teeth near the base of each sepal, which, though not recorded, arc I believe
peculiar to that species, and rarely, if ever, obsolete. I . Beecheyana has been confounded by the collector
with I humihs, a plant of the Ukr^ne, found especially near Elizabethgrod ; as / . Ruthenica has, on the
other hand, been confounded with it in Russia, from whence Ruthenica has been sent with the wrono- name
to the British nurserymen. I . Tolmieana may be at once distinguished from humilis by its strong thick
Footstalk. ^ The plant most nearly allied to humilis is I. Cretica, mild, found in Crete, and also near Napoli
d, Romania, folus subseptemuncialibus vix lineam latis acutis basi ampliatis marginibus coriaceo-crispis. S i
uncias sohdo ^ unc. amplíalo libero, limbo biunciali. I apprehend it has never been observed that the true
character of the genus Iris is a short ventricose or somewhat funnel-shaped tube free from the style, and a solid
subcylindrical base which m some speeies is little more than a point of union, and in others is prolonged many
inches. This solid part of the tube is in some species of the same texture as the thick parts of the limb in
others o the coriaceous texture of the germen from whieh it has in that case no decided point of separation
outwardly discernible. These important circumstances in the structure appear to have been neriected by
botanists. The true stigma of Ir is is transverse below the crests of the style, and its form is very different
m different species : another most important feature which has been neglected, but it cannot be ascertained
T J numerous native specimens I had seen of / . tenax, whether from Newfoundland
or the N. W. of America, the spathe is one-valved. the second valve being placed like a bracte an inch below
on the stalk. A similar disturbance of the spathe fakes place in I. Douglasiana v. bracteata.” W
solidi niid^ h i erectis acutis basi purpureis caule (bifloro)
solido nudo brevioribus, spatha bivalvi acuta subtriunciali germen alternate oblongum (vix) submquanti tubo
brevi ( i uuc. libero vix Imeam solido) sepalis (ultra 2^ uncialibus) petala circiter biuncialia superantibus styii
obis ultra sesquiuncialibus (cristis bidentatis ?), perianthio cmrulescente 1 - 1 . h<miatophylla var. Valamriiana.
Herb, in Hooli. Flor. Bor. Am. II, p . 206.
H a . , Prope flu,i„m Walamet in Fl. Oolurabiai.i ex parte meridionali tendentem legit Tolmie
foli, i 1 7 / 1 f toora the hills of Kentuok; to Canada, I . Caurina (mihi)
p a l e “ l l b r e l L t e a . “■ “ »’ - i ampio
Tulipacex.] C A L IFO R N IA .—SUPPLEMENT .
O r d . L X I I . T U L I P A C E ^ . DC .
397
1. Fritillaria mutica iJLindl.); cauli basi longe nud o apice racemoso multifloro, foliis
inferioribus verticillatis a lata basi longe angustatis ecirrhosis, floribus secundis tessellatis
n u tan tib u s basi obtusis bracteis triplo brevioribus, pedunculis brevissimis recurvis. L in d l.
in Bot. Reg. sub t. 1663.
This “ has very much the aspect of F. verticillata, but the leaves are not cirrhose, and the flowers are
greenish-purple, spotted like F. Meleagris, growing in long racemes.” Lindl.—In our specimens the pedicels
can scarcely be called “ very short,” being often three quarters of an inch long, and the leaves arc lanceoiate
linear and acuminated, but not with a broad base. The style is, in this and in both the following, trifid, as in
the genuine species of Fritillaria.
2. F. liliácea {L in d l.); caule stricto apice racemoso basi folioso foliis oblongo-lanceolatis
inferioribus verticillatis superioribus alternis, floribus secundis concoioribus cernuis
basi angustatis, pedunculis erectis bracteis longioribus, capsula oblonga apice ro tu n d a ta
basi mutica. L in d l. I. c.
“ Closely allied to F. alba of Nutt., from which it differs in its broader leaves, and differently shaped capsule.
It is a most remarkable plant, with the habit of a lily : its flowers are apparently pale yellow, narrow at
the base, and not unlike those of Liiium pudicum.” Lin d l Of this we possess two forms : one with the
flowers scarcely narrowed at the base, and about as obtuse there as in F. mutica, while the pedicels are con-
siderably longer than the bracteas: the other, as Lindley says, has flowers very similar to Liiium pudicum,
being remarkably narrowed at the base, but the pedicels are in every instance much shorter than the bracteas,
while the accompanying specimens in fruit resemble the first variety. All have the pedicels erect, except im^
mediately under the flower, where they are recurved.
3. F . biflora {L in d l.); caule basi n udo apice bifloro, foliis verticillatis alternisve oblongo-
lanceolatis versus apicem caulis deficientibus, floribus pendulis subcylindraceis concoioribus,
pedunculis bracteis brevioribus. L in d l. I. c.
This “ resembles F. tulipifolia in habit, but differs in its two-flowered stem, and numerous leaves which
are either alternate or verticillate.” Lindl.— Oor specimeus, in habit as well as in the colour of the flowers,
approach so closely to F. Kamtsckatcensis, that they are scarcely to be distinguished but by the leaves of
the perianth being quite destitute of the curious crested veins, almost peculiar to that species, and which are
represented at Tab. 193. A. of the Flor. Bor. Am.]
1. Ery thronium grandiflorum {P u rsh .); foliis oblongo seu elliptico-lanceolatis vix p u n c tatis,
pedúnculo I-paucifloro, sepalis lanceolatis valde acuminatis fere ab ima basi reflexis,
stigmate trip a rtito .—/?, giganteum: cauli 2-5 floro, floribus flavis. Hook. Flor. Bor. Am.
I I. p . 1820.—E . g iganteum. L in d l. in Bot. Reg. sub. t. 1786.
H a b . /}. Blue Mountains, Snake Country ; Tolmie.
Dr Lindley distinguishes the var. A, ]\\sE. giganteum, from the type of the species, by the irregularly branched
scape, the leaves of the perianth reflexed only from the middle, and the stigma S-lobed, not 3-partite : but
there is no difference whatever in the two last points, and as to the first, these are insensible gradations from
a single to a several flowered scape.
i:i'; ■
iii'
iii,