Tas. 5000. 
BURTONIA SCABRA. 
Rough-leaved Burtonia. 
Nat. Ord. LeauMInos#.—DEcaNnDRIA MONOGYNIA. 
Gen. Char. Calyx profunde quinquefidus v. quinquepartitus, subaqualis. 
Corolle papilionacee vevillum breviter unguiculatum, alis obovato-oblongis lon- 
gius; carina alas subeequans, incurva, acutiuscula v. subrostrata. Stamina 10, 
libera ; filamentis glabris. Ovarium sessile, biovulatum. Stylus seepius ¢ basi 
dilatata subulatus, glaber vel hine barbatus; stigma tenue, imberbe. Legumen 
ovatum v. subrotundum, subventricosum. Semina estrophiolata,—Frutices 0. 
suffrutices Novee-Hollandiz; foliis sparsis, simplicibus v. trifoliolatis, subulatis, in- 
tegerrimis ; stipulis nudlis ; floribus ad apices ramulorum glomeratis, v. terminalibus 
corymbosis ; pedicellis brevibus, bibracteolatis. Endl. 
Burtonta (§ Euburtonia) scadra ; foliis erectis trifoliolatis, foliolis subulato-line- 
aribus scabris subaduncis muticis, ramulis teretibus pubescentibus. 
Burronia scabra. Br. in Hort. Kew. ed. 2. v. 3. p. 12. De Cand. Prodr. v. 2. 
p. 106. Lehm. Plant. Preiss. v. 1. p 41. 
GompHoLosium scabrum. Smith, in Linn. Soc. Trans. v. 9. p. 250. 
More than half a century ago this very lovely plant, a discovery 
of Mr. Menzies, at King George’s Sound, was living and flower- 
ing at the Royal Gardens at Kew, having been introduced in 
1803 by Mr. Peter Good. No figure of it however was ever 
published, and it appears to have been lost to our collections for a 
great number of years past, though other species, nearly as hand- 
some, have taken its place, among which we may mention Bur- 
tonia pulchella, Meisn., figured and described at our Tab. 4392, 
and B. villosa, Meisn. (Tab. Nostr. 4410). ‘The present species 
undoubtedly boasts the most brilliant, flowers of any known to 
us, and is well distinguished by the singularly scabrous surface 
of the leaves, all rough with minute hard papillz. It is moreover 
the species on which the genus Burtonia was founded by Mr. 
Brown. It was first noticed as a Gompholobium by Sir J. E. 
Smith in the’ Linnean Transactions, above quoted; but as his 
knowledge of the plant was derived from a drawing only, he had 
not the materials for determining correctly the genus. Our plant 
AuGustT Ist, 1857. 
