Sp ira l jUaments (f. 21) fulvous, apparently enveloped in a delicate, pellucid tu b e ; b u t
whether or n ot these a re affixed to th e ends o f th e valves, o r, as I ra th e r suspect,
to various parts o f th e in te rio r o f th e capsule, 1 have been unable to determine.
The variety fi, major, is remarkable for the size o f its foliage, which is twice as la rg e as th a t o f a ,
a nd for its being th roughout glossy : th e stems a re equally irreg u la rly pinnate.
J'ar. y has th e stems much elongated and regula rly, th o u g h distantly, pinna ted with sh o rt and
horizontal ramuli, th a t are mostly simple. T h e leaves gradua lly, ut le a st in many instances,
become less, as they approach th e extremity o f th e p la n t, and are glossy, and, in all th e
specimens th a t have come u n d e r m y observation, o f a yellow-brown color. — T h e two varieties
differ in no o th e r pa iticu la rs from a ; and in tem e d ia te states, even o f the se , shew th a t th e marks
h e re laid down are by no means strictly to be depended upon.
J . platyphy lla, which in Britain is extremely ab undant, and is said, by Dillenius, also to be a
na tive o f V irginia and Pensylvania, is subject to considerable variation in appearance, whence some
botanists have been led to form from it two species, which seem, indeed, a t first sig h t, sufficiently
distinct, yet, on a more m in u te investigation, it will be readily ascertained in how s lig h t a degree a
ch aracter taken from the g ene ra l habit is to be dejiended upon. Perhaps even th e J . loevigata o f
Schrader and o f this work o u g h t to be considered as a fourth variety ; b u t as I have already, under
th a t species, expres.sed my doubts, as well as pointed o u t th e only differences th a t 1 have been able
to find between th em , it wiU be unnecessary for me he re to repeat e ith e r th e one or th e othe r. Tliere
is no o the r Ju n ge rm annia th a t I am acquainted with, with which th e re is th e least chance o f
J . platyphy lla b e ing confounded. W ith rega rd to its affinity, I am a t a loss to say to which o f the
fmnilies it naturally belongs in the division o f “ Stipula tee, fo liis înæqualitèr bilobis, lobis inferioribus
ndnoribiis p la n is ;' for, while, on th e one hand, it resembles J . tomentella and ciliaris in the
s truc ture o f its foliag-e, on th e othe r, it greatly differs from them in its fructification; and in the
short valves o f th e capsule agrees with a very na tu ra l family, consisting o f J . serpyllifolia,
J . hamaiifolia, J . calyptrifoUa, and J . minutissima, which in o th e r respects it is, nevertheless,
extremely unlike.
1 hai'e omitted, in th e above synonyms, many references to th e older botanists, which are
mentioned in Dillenius an<l Micheli, because, from th e ir short and imperfect characters, d t is n ot
possible to quote them with the le a s t chance o f b e in g correct. Micheli’s figures are more to be
tra s te d th an his descriptions. His repre senta tion o f th e ramuli, co nta ining th e male fructification,
is very a c cura te , as is his description. T h e an th e rs , it is well known, lie looked iqjon as th e seeds,
and o f these he says, th a t they are found “ non in exfe rnà foliorum p a rte , sed recondita in sinu
squamarum cujusdam fru c tû s, qui locustarum Graminis amoris formam præ se ferens, pe r surculos
vel pe r plantas non floriferas innasci solet.” His figure o f th e var. Thuja is much la rg e r th a n I have