M i: !
í :¡ i'
J I
ip-Ji
• [Enphorbiacecs.
t t « . Conccplion.-The specimen in the collection is so indifferent as to prevent ns from doterminimr
It with precision. It may possibly bo Sjoenmimw, Hiiinb. and Kunth. ^
O r d . L V II . P R O T E A C E r ii. Juss.
1. LOMATIA. Br.
1. L .oU ig ,u t; foliis ovatis serratis glabris, racemis axillaribus, pedicellis calycibi.S(,ue
pilosis stigmate deciduo. B r . in Lin n . Trans, v. 10. yi. .SO l.-Em b o tlirium obliquum
t iu i z et Pav. Fl. Per. v. I. p . 83. t. 97.
been introduced to the Glasgow Botanic Garden. J • ucKsnanlis, it has
O r d . L V I I I . S A N T A L A C E ® . Br.
1. QUINCHAMALIUM. Juss.
1. ( I -M e n s e . L am . III. t. 142.— Q. procumbens. B u iz et Pav. Fl. Per. v. I t V f l
/ . 6.— yuin ch am ali, &c. Feuill. CUI. v. 2. t. 44.
a. robustior ; foliis linearibus.
{S. gracilis ; foliis filiformibus.
bv S n te n J i •'“™ s:™" “O UFoifio character, the other species mentioned
by Sprengel, or the Aryonm tuberosa, Cav. Ic. v. 4. t. 383, from Patagonia, being hitherto involved in great
uncertainty, and probably belonging to the T ’'----- -
O e d . L IX . E U P H O E B IA C E rE . Juss.
1. EUPHORBIA. L im .
1. E . rotundifoha ; suffruticosa diffusa, foliis oppositis rotundatis emarginatis basi leviter
cordatis integerrimis carnosulis glabris subtns pallidis, stipulis intrapetiolaribus, floribus
paucis terminalibus umbellatis.
H.U1. Conception.-This belongs to the section ArusopbyUum” of Eoeper in the Bolanicon GalUcnm
P eL °“^ T “ s ' ? “ ’ To E. serpgllifolm.
Pets., and E . serpeus, Hnmb and Kunth, (one and the same species,) our plant is very closely aUied, the
flowers however, are not axdlary and solitary, but coUeeted, five or six together, on rather short simple
peduncles at the extremity of the branches. ^
2. E . L a th jr is . L in n .~ R o e p e r, E n . Euph. p . 67.
H ab. (a mimr ) Conception._We can find no essential difference between the. imperfect, specimen in
the toUeetion and the Enropman plant, except the much smaUer size, being only abont fifteen inches high,
and that the leaves, instead of being flaccid, are inclined to be coriaceous.
3. E . fa lca ta ? L in n .—Roeper, En . Euph. p . 67.
H ab. Coquimbo.
Urtkm?;
2. CROTON. Linn.
1 C lanceolatus; lierbaceus, foliis oblongo-lanceolatis remote dentatis glabris eglandu-
losis junioribus ciliatis, racemis axillaribus, floribus masculis S-andris, petalis 3-cuspida-
tis, fructibus tomentosis. S p r .-C a v . Ic. v. 6. t. 557. f . 2 . - C . tricnspidatnm. Lam.
H ab. Conception.
O r d . L X . E M P E T R E ® . Nutt.
1. EMPETRUM. Linn.
i. E . rubrum; procumbens, ramulis pubescentibus, foliis oblongis margine revolutis
supra scabriusculis. Spr.— Vahl.
H ab. Conception.—Mr. Don has separated from this genus the E . album, under the name of Corema, in
the Edin. New Phil. Journ. v. 2. p. 63, and, in the same paper, has pointed out, a t length, the affinities of the
order with tbe 1
O r d . L X I . U R T IC E ® . Juss.
1. GUNNERA. Linn.
G .sca b ra ; foliis lobatis, petiolis granulosis, thyrsis magnis. R u iz et Pav. El. Per.
V. I. p. 29. t. 4 4 . / a.— Panke, Scc._Feuill. Chil. v. 2. p . 30.
H ab. Conception.—We have determined the plant from Mr. Collie’s notes, for it has not been sent us
in the Collection.—Allied to this Order, but forming part of the Monimecs, is the Boldu of Chili, which,
though no specimens were obtained by tbe Expedition, we ought not to pass over. One of the first plants,
FeuQlee says, that he coUected on landing, was tbe “ Boldu," but neither in flower nor fruit, and the figure
he gives was from another individual, gathered afterwards in the mountains. This has six stamens, and is the
Boldus chilensis of Molina, (Saggio Sulla Storia, Nat. del Chil. ed. 2. p. 153,) and of Roemer and Schultes,
Syst. V. 7. p. 57; but from what we have received from Mr. Cruckshanks, this is certainly not the true
Boldu, a name confined to one plant, and not, as Molina says, given to several. The plant of Feuillee is still
involved in considerable doubt, inasmuch as it is very uncertain if Molina ever saw it, he having in
many cases contented himself with giving fanciful names to Feuillee’s indifferent descriptions. It is certainly,
however, the Peumus Boldus of Molina’s History of Chili; and if actually an existing plant, may
be arranged with his other kinds of Peumo, or Chilian species of Laurus; but tbe extreme resemblance of
the leaf to that of the real Boldu, leads us to suspect that the plant of Feuillee, having opposite leaves, may
be compounded of the stem and leaves of the true Boldu, while the flowers may belong to something very
different. One species of the Peumo is now before ns, from Mr. Macrae, agreeing tolerably with the Peumus
rubra of Molina, and constituting probably the Laurus Peumus of Lamarck: the leaves are oblong
obtuse, alternate on a very short petiole, one-nerved, the margin cartilaginous, or as if formed of a nerve,
very entire, but undulate, at least in the dry state: the flowers (only in bud) are in a terminal raceme. The
Boldu was first described in the Flora Peruviana, (Genera, p. 135. t. 29,) by the uame of Ruizia Boldu, but
there being already the Ruizia of CavauiUcs, it was necessary to adopt some other appellation. Richard, in
Persoon’s Synopsis, supposing it, as many others have done, to be the Peumus Boldus of Molina, took up that
name, but with the character given by Ruiz and Pavon; and, soon afterwards, Jussieu gave it that of
Boldoa. We prefer that of Jussieu, as the appellation “ Boldu" is peculiar to our plant We are aware
that there is a Boldea of Cavanilles, but that is the same with Salpianthus of Humb. and Bonpl. We have
i-eceived specimens from Mr. Cruckshanks, Mr. Macrae, and Jlr. Bridges, from the neighbourhood of Valparaiso.
The “ Laurel ” of Chili, {Ldurelia aromatica, Juss., or Tkiga chilensis. Mol., and Paconia of the
Fl. Per.) belongs also to the order of Alonimece, but this we have uot seen. ISIr. Cruckshanks informs us