94 MR. D. OLIVER ON THE LORANTHACE X. 
northern plants are probably distinct species, judging from the 
venation of the leaves. I-am enabled by their aid to correct some 
inaccuracies in the generie description, which have been adopted 
by Endlicher, who, after Poeppig, describes the ¢ flower as “tubo 
filiformi,’ and with stamina “limbi laciniis alterna." The 
“tubus” is the pedicel; the *laciniz," the lobes of a thickened 
disk. In Seemann's g plant I observe a pair of setiform bract- 
like processes, which I was in doubt whether to regard as lateral 
bracteole or reduced perianth-segments. As they appear to be 
opposite to stamens, I conclude they are the latter. The Peruvian 
plant appears destitute of them. In this genus, as also in Lepi- 
doceras, I have noted interesting relations to subsist between the 
Nieder-, Laub-, and Hoch-blitter of Braun. In describing these, I 
shall employ the terms used by Mr. Henfrey, derived from Greek 
roots, viz. cata-, eu-, and hypso-phyllary (scale, foliage-leaf, and 
bract) leaf-formations. The spikes of both d and 9 flowers found 
in the axils of the leaves or clustered about the apices of the 
branches are at first strobilus-like, covered with numerous dry 
imbricating scales, the lowermost of which are empty and truly 
cataphyllary. These pass into others quite similar in structure, 
though larger, subtending the flowers. After these and continuous 
with them, though with rather abrupt transition in respect to 
texture and duration (for the dry scales are caducous), come the 
young euphyllary leaves, which unfold themselves as the spike 
elongates. We thus always find the young fruits scattered along 
the lower, bare portion of the shoots, the bracts having long since 
fallen away. The upper portion bears the leaves, in the axils of 
which these formations are repeated. I must refer to Lepidoceras 
for a case somewhat similar, though in some respects more remark- 
able. Compare also the account of the ramification, &c. of Myzo- 
dendron, by Dr. Hooker (Flora Antarctica, ii. 290). 
Evsracuion, Hook. fil. 
It is unfortunate that I am unable to add more to our know- 
ledge of this rare and curious plant. It will be seen in the 
appended Synopsis that we do not possess technical characters of 
importance to distinguish it. In habit the plant looks very differ- 
ent from any of its allies. Anyone visiting Uruguay will do well 
to have an eye to it. 
Leprpoceras, Hook. fil. 
The two species originally described briefly by Dr. Hooker in 
the ‘Flora Antarctica’ are the only ones known to me, the 
