authority to say that such is his opinion ; and this, in the 

 genus Paeony, must have great weight. 



r ' 



From the observations of the same gentleman, we learn 

 that the characters which can be certainly depended upon 

 in distinguishing P. hybrida from P. tenuifolia, are, firstly, 

 the nodding flower of the former, as contrasted with the 

 erect flower of the latter ; secondly, the greater length of 

 the peduncle, by which the flower of P. hybrida is ele- 

 vated distinctly above the leaves, while that of P. tenui- 

 folia is always overtopped by them ; and, lastly, in 

 the greater breadth of the leaves of P. hybrida. From 

 P. anomala it is readily separated by its downy, not 

 smooth, fruit. 



Pallas states, that he first observed this in the Peters- 

 burgh Garden, coming up among P. tenuifolia and P. ano- 



mala, whence he inferred that it 



was hybrid between 



those two species. He, however, subsequently found _. 

 wild in Tauria ; and there now appears in the opinion of 

 Russian Botanists to be - - - 



hybrid origin. 



ground for the notion of 



It is said, upon the authority of Dr. Fischer, 

 be wild about the Volga. 



4 



According to Marschall von Bieberstein, it is native of 



in the promontory of the Caucasus, espe- 



it is very rare in Tauria 



grassy 



cially about Stauropol 



The same writer adds, that it propagates itself without 



b 



from seeds 



d that P. laciniata of Willdenow 



cited to P. tenuifolia by M. Decandolle, is the same as 

 P. hybrida. 



Our drawing was made in May 1828, in the Garden of 

 the Horticultural Society. 



J. L. 



