190 
002 7*7 EUPHORBIA punicea. 
m Scarlet Spurge. : .. 
DODECANDRIA TRIGYNIA. . i 
fat. ord. Рорноввал. Jussieu gen. 385. 
Dig. I. Styli plures definiti, seepiüs tres. ] 
' EUPHORBIA. Hermaphrodita. Cal. l-phyllus turbinatus, limbo 
4-5 dentato, dentibus inflexis. — Petala 4-5, calyci alterné dentibus calycinis 
externe inserta, formå varia, crassiuscula, nunc glandulifotmié, nunc sim« 
plicia, nunc 2-3-fida aut rarids multifida. Stam. indefinita 12 aut plura, 
rariús pauciora; filamenta receptaculo inserta, medio articulata, diverso, 
tempore erumpentia; anther didyme. Istis fertilibus interjiciuntur alia 
sterilia paleacea aut squamosa, definita aut sepius indefinita, simplicia іш? 
sæpiùs ramosa vel fimbriata. Germen inter stamina centrale stipitatum 
$-gonum; styli 8. Capsula stipite reflexo extra. calycem nutans 3-cocca 
S-sperma. Plante lactescentes, herbacee aut fruticose, erecte aut тата 
repentes, aphylle aut sepids foliose. Jussieu gen. 985; (nonnullis variatis). 
E. punicea, umbella quinquefida; trifida, involucellis ovalibus acuminstis 
> coloratis, capsulis glabris foliis obovato-lanceolatis subtüs glaucis, 
, Swartz prodr. 76. — 7 ^ DE 
Euphorbia punicea, - Smartz ind. occid. 2. 878. Hort. Kew. 2. 148. ed. 9. 9. 
А 167, Smith ic, pict. 8. Jacq» іс. rar. 1. 484, coll, 2.179, Willd. sp, рі; 
“A favourite decoration of our hothouses. Introduced 
from Jamaita'in 1778, by Mr. Wallen. It is a smooth 
fleshy-wooded milky shrub, attaining sometimes the height 
of seven feet. In the present specimen Mr. Edwards ap- 
pears to have met throughout’ with only two leaflets to 
each scarlet partial involucre: the number varies to 3. | 
In place’ of the detailed description of the species, we 
have subjoined, from Mr. Brown's instructive treatise on 
the botany of Terra Australis, in the Appendix to Flinders's 
Voyage, an opinion of the structure of the flower, formed sub- 
sequently to that laid down by Linneeus, which still con- 
tinues the routinary precedent of the systematic catalogues. 
г. 6 The view I take of the structure of EvrHonBIA is, in 
* one important particular at least, different from those 
* given by Lamarck, Ventenat, Richard and De Candolle, 
€ though possibly the same that Jussieu һай hinted at; во 
* briefly, however, and I may add obscurely, that if hig 
“Supposition be really analogous to what I shall presently 
* offer, he has not been so understood by those who. profess 
© to follow him in this respect.” 
