a and the only difference of consequence 
Tas. 6005. 
LILIUM concotor, VAR. sINICUM. 
Native of China. 
Nat. Ord. LiL1acez,—Tribe TULIPEZ. 
Genus Litium, Linn. ; (Baker in Gard. Chron., 1871). 
Litium (Isolirion) concolor; caule }-3-pedali apicem versus paucifloro 
subpubescente, foliis sparsis supremis subverticillatis anguste oblongo- 
lanceolatis subacutis margine erosis subtus puberulis, floribus sub- 
‘corymbosis ad 3 poll. diam. miniato-rubris concoloribus v. punctis 
.luridis conspersis, perianthii basi campanulati foliolis patentibus 
3~# poll. latis basin versus medio suleo pubescente exsculpto epappil- 
losis, filamentis pollicaribus et ultra, antheris 4-pollicaribus, polline 
rubro, ovario anguste clavato infra apicem intrusum contracto profunde 
3-sulcato, stylo brevi stigmateque crasso 3-lobo rubris. 
Liv concolor, Salish. Hort. Parad. t. 47; Bot. Mag. t. 1165 ; Ait. 
Hort. Kew. Ed. 2, vol. ii. p. 241; Kunth, Enum. vol. iv. p. 259 et 673 ; 
Koch, Wochenschrift, 1870; Baker in Gard. Chron. 1871, p. 1034; 
Duchartre, Obs. sur le genre Lis, p. 1 25. 
Var. sinicum ; perianthii foliolis erecto-patentibus vix recurvis, pedunculis 
longioribus. L. sinicum, Lindl. in Pact. Fl. Gard. vol. ii. Mise. 
p- 115, t. 198; Lemaire Ill. Hort. t. 100; Van Houtte, Flore des 
Serres, t. 1206. 
Though maintained as a species by Koch in his valuable 
- revision of the genus Lilium, quoted above, and apparently 
by Duchartre also in his admirable observations on the 
genus, I think that no one can compare Lilium concolor and — 
sinicum, whether by figures or as specimens, without becom- 
ing convinced that Lindley’s original suspicions were 
grounded, and that Mr. Baker is right in regarding them as _ 
__ Specifically identical; though they may perhaps be grige 
ently distinguishable as varieties or forms. Not only “4 
they come from the same country, but both are known only 
in ivati ith spotted and spotless flowers ; 
a between them is, that 
DECEMBER Ist, 1872. 
