Urticea.} CHILI. 45 



2. CROTON. Linn. 



1. C. lanceolatus; herbaceus, foliis oblongo-lanceolatis remote dentatis glabris eglandu- 

 losis, junioribus ciliatis, racemis axillaribus, floribus masculis 5-andris, petalis 3-cuspida- 

 tis, fructibus tomentosis. Spr. — Cav. Ic. v. 6. t. 557. / 2. — C. tricuspidatum. Lam. 



Hab. Conception. 



Ord. LX. EMPETRE^E. Nutt. 

 1. EMPETRUM. Linn. 

 1. E. rubrum; procumbens, ramulis pubescentibus, foliis oblongis margine revolutis 

 supra scabriusculis. Spr. — Vahl. 



Hab. Conception.— Mr. Don has separated from this genus the E. album, under the name of Corema, in 

 the Edin. New Phil. Journ. v. 2. p. 63, and, in the same paper, has pointed out, at length, the affinities of the 

 order with the Euphorbiacece. 



Ord. LXI. URTICEiE. Juss. 

 1. GUNNERA. Linn. 



1. G.scabra; foliis lobatis, petiolis granulosis, thyrsis magnis. Ruiz et Pav. Fl. Per. 

 v. 1. p. 29. t. 44./ a.— Panke, &c. Feuill. Chil. v. 2. p. 30. 



Hab. Conception.— We have determined the plant from Mr. Collie's notes, for it has not been sent us 

 in the Collection.— Allied to this Order, but forming part of the Monimem, is the Boldu of Chili, which, 

 though no specimens were obtained by the Expedition, we ought not to pass over. One of the first plants, 

 Feuille'e says, that he collected on landing, was the " Boldu;' but neither in flower nor fruit, and the figure 

 he gives was from another individual, gathered afterwards in the mountains. This has six stamens, and is the 

 Boldus chilemis of Molina, (Saggio Sulla Storia, Nat. del Chil. ed. 2. p. 153,) and of Roemer and Schultes, 

 Syst. v. 7. p. 57; but from what we have received from Mr. Cruckshanks, this is certainly not the true 

 Boldu, a name confined to one plant, and not, as Molina says, given to several. The plant of Feuillde is still 

 involved in considerable doubt, inasmuch as it is very uncertain if Molina ever saw it, he having in 

 many cases contented himself with giving fanciful names to Feuillee's indifferent descriptions. It is cer- 

 tainly, however, the Peumus Boldus of Molina's History of Chili; and if actually an existing plant, may 

 be arranged with his other kinds of Peumo, or Chilian species of Laurus ; but the extreme resemblance of 

 the leaf to that of the real Boldu, leads us to suspect that the plant of Feuille'e, having opposite leaves, may 

 be compounded of the stem and leaves of the true Boldu, while the flowers may belong to something very 

 different. One species of the Peumo is now before us, from Mr. Macrae, agreeing tolerably with the Peu- 

 mus rubra of Molina, and constituting probably the Laurus Peumus of Lamarck : the leaves are oblong 

 obtuse, alternate on a very short petiole, one-nerved, the margin cartilaginous, or as if formed of a nerve, 

 very entire, but undulate, at least in the dry state : the flowers (only in bud) are in a terminal raceme. The 

 Boldu was first described in the Flora Peruviana, (Genera, p. 135. t. 29,) by the name of liuizia Boldu, but 

 there beino- already the Ruizia of Cavanilles, it was necessary to adopt some other appellat.on. Richard, u, 

 Persoon's Synopsis, supposing it, as many others have done, to be the Peumus Boldus of Mohna, took up that 

 name, but with the character given by Ruiz and Pavon; and, soon afterwards, Jumea gave it that of 

 Boldoa. We prefer that of Jussieu, as the appellation « Boldu" is peculiar to our plant We are aware 

 that there is a Boldea of Cavanilles, but that is the same with Salpianthus of Humb. and Bonpl. We have 

 received specimens from Mr. Cruckshanks, Mr. Macrae, and Mr. Bridges, from the ne.ghbourhood of Val- 

 paraiso. The « Laurel " of Chili, (Laurelia aromatica, Juss., or Thiga chilensis, MoL, and Pavoma of the 

 Fl. Per.) belongs also to the order of Monimece, but this we have not seen. Mr. Cruckshanks informs us 



