140 DR. GRISEBACH ON COUTOUBEA VOLUBILIS. 
brevioribus, vaginis 4 sessilibus lanceolatis inferiore foliacea, racemo 
laxo 2- plurifloro, bracteis foliaceis acutissimis ovario longioribus, se- 
palis patentissimis linearibus acuminatis calcare clavato ascendente 
brevioribus, petalis e lata basi setaceis indivisis, labelli tripartiti laciniis 
omnibus setaceis, anthera lineari apiculata sepalo dorsali parum bre- 
viore. 
** Herbaceous plant, 2 feet high; calyx and corolla white and green. 
Banks of Bonny R., Oct. 1860." (518) Mann. 
Leaves about 8 inches long, like those of a Prescottia. Scape 
from 7 to 9 inches high, excluding the flowers, which vary in 
number from two to ten. Sepals rather more than an inch long; 
spur3 inches. The whole aspect of the flower is that of a Bonatea, 
without, however, the apparatus of that subgenus. The anther is 
very nearly as long as the dorsal sepal, a circumstance previously 
unknown in the genus. 
4. H. PRÆALTA, Lindl. Gen. & Sp. Orch. p. 321.—Satyrium prealtum, 
Thouars, Orch. Afr. t. 11. 
** Top of Clarence Peak, Fernando Po, at 10,000 feet, Dec. 1860.” (645) 
Mann. l 
This does not appear to differ from the Bourbon plant, as far as 
can be judged from the figure and from a bad specimen given me by 
the late Achille Richard. One of Mann’s two specimens is 2 feet 
high, the other not quite 5 inches. 
Notes on Coutoubea volubilis, Mart., and some oth r Gentianem | 
of Tropical America. By Dr. A. H. R. GarsEsAcu, F.M. L.S. 
[Read Nov. 7, 1861.] 
Ix the later set of Mr. Wright’s Cuba-plants there occurs a twi- _ 
ning herbaceous Gentianea, which agrees (though not in all par- 
ticulars of its description) with Coutoubea volubilis, Mart., or at 
least is its congener, and may be referred to it, till the comparison 
of authentic specimens shall settle the question whether it be 
specifically different: the chief discrepancy, viz. a simple raceme, 
in Dr. von Martius's description may be accidental. From the struc- 
iure of the flower, however, the 5-partite calyx, and chiefly from the 
peculiar stigma and singular habit, it is evidently no true Coutou- 
bea, but must form a new genus, to which (Goeppertia, Nees, in 
Laurinex, proving identical with Aydendron) I wish to transfer 
that vacant name, as an acknowledgment due to the deserving 
Silesian botanist. The systematical place of Goeppertia would be 
next to Coutoubea, which in a éertain degree it connects with 
