13 
RUELLIA lilacína. 
Lilac-flowered Ruellia. 
—— 
DIDYNAMIA ANGIOSPERMIA. 
Nat. ord. ACANTHACE&. (ACANTHADS, Vegetable Kingdom, p. 678. 
ined.) 
RUELLIA, L.— Calyx ad basim quinquepartitus, laciniis subsequalibus 
linearibus apice subdilatatis herbaceis, vel sequalibus acuminatis. Corolla 
infundibuliformis, tubo in limbum anguste campanulatum quinquefidum con- 
tinue transeunte, laciniis egualibus obtusis. Stamina quatuor, didynama, 
basi faucium inserta. Anthere oblonge, bilocellatee, locellis parallelis con- 
tiguis sequalibus muticis vel basi mucronulatis. Stigma subulatum, spirale, 
dorso spongiolosum, canaliculatum, basi denticulo auctum. Capsula angusta, 
quadrangularis, ad basim usque bilocularis, a basi ultra medium sex-octo- 
sperma. Dissepimentum completum, adnatum. Semina retinaculis medio- 
cribus suffulta.— Inflorescentia :—spice, plerumque in capitulorum formam 
contracte, foliaceo-bracteate ideoque rudes et parum conspicue. Bracteole 
nulle vel anguste. Flores mediocres. Plereque herbacese sunt et hirsute. 
Nees v. Esenbeck in Wallich’s Plante Asiatice rariores, 3. 82. 
R. lilacina; fruticosa, glabra; caule tetragono, foliis petiolatis ovato-lanceo- 
latis acuminatis subundulatis, spicis pubescentibus longe pedunculatis 
axillaribus foliis longioribus basi subpaniculatis, floribus solitariis brac- 
teis linearibus squamseformibus, calyce 5-partito piloso, sepalis linearibus, 
coroll: tubo longissimo cylindraceo curvo in limbum subcampanulatum 
sequaliter 5-partitum laciniis emarginatis rotundatis abrupté expanso, 
capsule valvis lanceolatis acuminatis divergentibus, seminibus in utroque 
loculo 6 imbricatis compressis glabris pube marginatis, retinaculis emar- 
ginatis. 
Ruellia longiflora, Hort. nec Vahlii nec Richardi. 
R. lilacina, Hooker in Bot. Mag. t. 4147. 
Why this gay plant should be called in our gardens 
Ruellia longiflora we have not discovered. It is not the plant 
of Richard, also called R. cayennensis, which comes from 
Guiana, and has narrow leaves, longer than the spikes of 
flowers; neither is it that of Vahl, or at all like it. The 
name has probably been given at random in the Nurseries. 
It has been already figured in the Botanical Magazine, 
under the name of R. lilacina; but the specimen examined 
by Sir W. Hooker must have been in a weak unhealthy condi- 
tion, for its flowers were axillary and sessile; whereas, when 
the plant is really in a natural state, they are developed in 
panicled spikes whose stalks are longer than the leaves, as is 
