^ -■ T 



r. S 



I I ' 



L H 



I 



SPECIES OF MESEMJJRYANTIIEMUM. 



87 



I 



tapering from the base to an acute apex, in side view one pair obtusely 

 rounded at the apex and the alternating pair or one of thoni more or loss 

 acute, keeled on the back at the apical part), whitish-ghiucous, with a few 

 dots towards the tips or jilmost dotlcss (the drawing represents dots all over 

 the back of some of the leaves, but none on the upper surface, except along 

 the edges). Peduncle terminal, longer than the leaves, cjlindric, thickened 

 and somewhat rugose at the upper parL Calyx unequally 4-lobed, the two 

 smaller lobes with white membranous margins. Corolla expanding in the 

 morning; petals numerous, the inner gradually smaller, linear, mostly entire 

 and acute, yellow. Stamens numerous ; filaments pale ; anthers whitish. 

 Stigmas aliout 10, about as long as the stamous, subulate, llaworth remarks 



(Rev. p. 92) 



iji 



by its whitish and 



nearly unspotted leaves and stout stem— a remark that equally applies to 



M. Tostratum. 



Dillenius figures some of tlie leaves as having 'a tooth or Irregularity on 

 each side near the tip, but this is an accidental or abnormal development, for 

 they are normally quite entire, although occasionally they have 1-2 irregu- 

 larities or teeth on their m:jrgins ; indeed, the plant I have figured, in 

 the following spring produced one leaf very similar to one of the toothed 

 loaves represented by Dillenius. I beli(H^e tiiis malformation is in some way 

 connected with insufficient heat in winter, when the new growth is formin" • 

 it IS certainly not of regular occurrence. It is either this toothing or 

 irregularity that liinn^ refers to in his description by the words '' exterjie 

 tuberculatis," or else he has mistaken the dots on the back of the leaf as 

 represented by Dillenius for tubercles, for there are no tubercles or raised 

 dots on the back of the leaves either figured or described by Dillenius. ' 



Miller, In his Dictionary, ed. 8, no. 40, has confused M. rostratum with 

 M.felinum, quoting the references to these two species as belonging to the 

 same plant, which he certainly would not have done had he been familiar 

 with either or both of them. 



I have not seen the type specimen of M. rostratum. Thunb., so am quite 

 unable to say if it is the same as M. rostratum, Linn, or not. Dried 

 specimens of this group would be very difficult to determine, as several 

 species have much superficial resemblance to one another when alive, and 

 tlieir distinctive characters would disappear when the plants are dried. 



M. TUBEKCULATUM, Mill. (PI 



base. Leaves mostly G-10 (soi 



13) 



12) 



StemlesSj branching at the 



11 mm. broad 



and 5-7 mm. thick at the base, whence they gradually taper to an acute 

 apex when viewed from above, and viewed sideways are of nearly equal 

 thickness throughout and acute or somewhat rounded at the apex, or one of 

 each pair more acute th;in the other, flat on the upper side, rounded on the 

 back at the basal part, keeled at the apical part, 'with the keel (under a lens) 



h2 



