(Tab. nostr. 4185) we had to lament the being obliged to leave it 
uncertain whether it was the same as the RoUmannia longiflora 
of Salisbury or not. A fine species of Randia (or rather, perhaps, 
Gardenia, for the two genera even are by no means clearly dis¬ 
tinguished), R. Bowieana (Bot. Mag. t. 3409), was sent to us 
from Kew in 1815, as a plant derived from “Brazil”; but the 
accurate Mr. J. Smith, at the Royal Gardens, has long since 
found it necessary to correct that error, and has satisfied himself 
that it was one of the few plants collected by Mr. Lockhart in 
Tuckey’s A^oyage to the Congo. Again, a noble Randia is given 
by Mr. Salisbury in the ‘ Paradisus Londinensis t. 93, under 
the name of Randia longijiora, Salisb. (not of Lam.); this is the 
Gardenia longijiora of ‘ Ait. Hort. Kew ’ ed. 2. v. i. p, 368 (not of 
* FI. Pemv.’) the Randia macranilia of De Cand., and Gardenia 
7nacrantlia, Roem. and Sch. Yet the plant was supposed to be only 
known fi'om the figme in the ‘ Paradisus.’ Lastly, we have in 
the ‘Bot. Register,’ 1846, tab. 63, a Gardenia from Mr. Whit¬ 
field equally introduced by Lord Derby, dedicated to one of the 
noblest patrons of Botany, His Grace the Duke of Devonshire. 
A comparison is drawn in favour of this really fine species, as 
contrasted with our Gardenia Rtanlegana given not long pre¬ 
viously in the Bot. Mag. above quoted; how far correctly, it 
being a mere matter of taste, the public may judge. Be that as 
it may, we cannot but express our opinion that this Gardenia Be- 
voniana is identical with Randia longijiora, Salisb., of which there 
was a plant six feet high in Mr. Hibbert’s collection in 1808, 
and with Randia Bowieana, which was at Kew before 1815, 
and is there still, at this moment copiously in flower (April, 
1847). The earliest specific name must of course be preferred 
for that plant. 
With regard to the present species, w arned by former errors, I 
have taken the greatest pains to see if it is anywhere described; but 
no published Randia or Gardenia accords with it: indeed, it seems 
scarcely possible for any one to describe this species without 
directing attention to the stigma (for so I here denominate the 
whole upper swollen part of the style) which really looks more 
like some diseased thing than the usually delicate extremity of 
a pistil. I may observe, indeed, that I possess from the Hort. 
Society of London a fruiting specimen of a Gardenia gathered 
by Mr. G. Don, at Sierra Leone, probably the same and which 
may be that taken up in Don’s edition of ‘Miller’s Gard. Diet’, 
under the name of G. ? longifolia : but when it is knowm that 
all that is said of this is, ‘ shrubby,’ branched, unarmed; 
leaves long, broad, lanceolate, acuminated, entire, membranous, 
petiolate; flow’^ers terminal, solitary, sessile; fruit largish, 
roundish, smooth,’ we may be well excused from coming to 
