DR. GRISEBACH ON COUTOUBEA VOLUBILIS. 141 
Erythrea. Its inflorescence is so far interesting, as it tends to 
show that the true spikes or racemes of Coutoubea are to be 
regarded as composed of cymes, reduced to a single flower, thus 
passing into the typical cymose inflorescence of Gentianee. 
GOEPPERTIA, nov. gen. 
Calyx 5-partitus, 2-bracteolatus. Corolla infundibuliformis, mar- 
cescens: limbo 5-partito. Stamina 5, e tubo corolle exserta : 
filamentis brevibus infra faucem insertis: antheris erectis ob- 
longis immutatis. Ovarium 1-loculare : stylo deciduo, stigmate 
indiviso ovoideo, basi in marginem prominulum producto. Cap- 
sula 2-valvis, septicida, valvulis paullo introflexis: semina reti- 
culata, marginalia, funiculis dentiformibus inserta. Herba 
volubilis : folia lanceolata, paribus plerisque distantibus: cyme 
3-fide v. 3-chotome, in racemum elongatum disposite (aut sec. 
Mart., racemus simplex, terminalis). 
G. voLUBILIS, Gr. Syn. Coutoubea, Mart. Caulis pluripedalis, tenuis, 
teretiusculus, superne ramosus, internodiis mediis 3" longis; folia 1” 
longa, 2'"" fere lata, acuminata, basi contracta vaginantia, uninervia, 
obscure venosa, margine sæpe revoluta; axis inflorescentiz 6-10", 
internodia ejus 1-14" longa, cymis pedunculum, calycibus pedicellum, 
subequantibus, bracteis bracteolisque linearibus, his brevioribus ; 
calyx bracteolis multo longior; segmentis lanceolatis, acuminatis, 
apice recurvis, margine membranaceis, tubo corollze parum superatis ; 
corolla habitu Erythrææ, “ochroleuca” (Mart.), fere ad medium 
divisa: tubo 2" longo, lobis dextrorsum contortis, elliptico-oblongis, 
obtusis, anthera duplo longioribus ; capsula ovoidea, 2" longa. 
Hab. In Cuba orientali (Wright, No. 1372); C. volubilis in Haiti 
(Bertero). 
Mr. Bentham (Hook. Journ. of Bot. vi. p. 193) has published 
some emendations to my arrangement of Gentianee, and, while 
generally approving of his views, I take this opportunity to add a 
few observations. In Coutoubea Mr. Bentham follows Kunth in 
regarding C. spicata, Aubl., as C. densiflora, Mart. Indifferent 
figures of old authors will often remain doubtful, but in this case 
I still believe that Martius was quite right in separating his 
Species ; for in Aublet's figure the flowers are much more distant, 
and the leaves not contracted at the base, while in his description 
I find nothing which would not apply to the plant I have described 
under his name. Now, as my own C. spicata proves to be iden- 
tical with C. reflexa, Benth., of which I now compare specimens 
from Guiana (R. Schomb. no. 1060) and from Bogota (C. spicata 
in Goudot’s Coll.), it is evident that there is no difference in Mr. 
