Tan. 6488, 
SENECIO spxctosus, DC. 
Native of South Africa. 
Nat. Ord. Compositm.—Tribe SENECIONIDE. 
Genus Senecio, Linn.; (Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. Pl. vol. ii. p. 446.) 
SENECIO speciosus; herbaceus, glanduloso-pubescens v. hirsutus, radice perennante, 
foliis carnosulis radicalibus obovato-lanceolatis subacutis v. obtusis crenato- 
serratis v. sinuato-dentatis, scapo elongato robusto flexuoso, foliis caulinis 
oblongis inferioribus auriculato-}-amplexicaulibus obtusis, superioribus sessi- 
libus acutis, corymbis laxis, capitulis longe pedunculatis roseo-purpureis disco 
saturatiore, involucro subcampanulato basi rotundato bracteis pducis dissitis 
instructo, bracteis propriis anguste linearibus glanduloso-hirsutis, floribus radii 
6-20, ligula lineari stricta patente apice minute 3-dentata, acheniis sulcatis 
_ puberulis. 
S. speciosus, Willd, Sp. Pl. vol. iii. pars 3, p. 1991; DC. Prod. vi. 407; Lodd. 
Bot. Cab. t.1113; Ker in Bot. Reg. t. 41; Ait. Hort. Kew. vol. v. p. 43 ; 
N. Brown in Gard. Chron. 1879, p. 615. 
S. pseudo-china, Andr. Bot. Rep. t. 291, non Linn. 
S. concolor, Harv. et Sond. Fl. Cap. iii. 362, in part. 
S. conevlor var. hispido-scabra, DC. 1. ¢. 407. 
Mr. N. Brown has, in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle” quoted 
above, cleared up the confused synonymy and history of 
this beautiful plant. It was published first in 1806, by 
Andrews, as the Linnzan SV. pseudo-china, it being supposed 
to have been introduced from that country, and to afford 
the drug called ‘“ China-root,” which, however, involved a 
second mistake, as that drug is the produce of a Smilaz. 
It next appeared in Willdenow’s ‘‘ Species Plantarum,” 
the author of which, recognizing ‘its difference from 
Linneeus’ S. pseudo-china, called it S. specitosus. In 1816 
Ker figured it under Willdenow’s name in the “ Botanical 
Register,” observing that the native country of the plant 
was not precisely determined, it being called Siberian by 
some and Chinese by others. Ten years afterwards 
Loddiges figured it in his “ Botanical Cabinet,” as intro- 
duced by him from the Mauritius, adding that it is a 
supposed native of China. In 1837 De Candolle, having 
South African specimens of Ecklon and Drege before him, 
APRIL Ist, 1880, 
