Tab. 7889. 

 iris collettii. 



Native of Burma. 



Nat. Ord. Iride.e. — Tribe Movljeem. 

 Genus Iris, Linn. ; (Benth. & Hoolc.f. Gen. Plant, vol. iii. p. 686.) 



Iris (Evansia) Gollettil ; dense caaspitosa, radicibus crapsis vermiformibus 

 annulatis, vaginiB infimis fibrosis, foliis liueari-ensiformibus canle demum 

 multo longioribus rigidis alte 5-costatis acumiDatis saturate viridibus, 

 caulibus 3-4-pollicaribus nudis 1-2-cephalis, spathis l|-2-pollicaribns 

 anguate lineari-lanceolatis acuminatis unifloris viridibus, pedunculo spathis 

 paullo lougiore, perianthii tubo brevi, limbi ad lj poll, lati segmentis 

 omnibus recurvis obovato-spatbulatis violaceis basin versus albo striatis 

 apice retusis exterioribus paullo majoribus crista imberbi angnsta ochro- 

 leuca instructis, styli ramis erectis crista ampla fere orbiculari bipartita, 

 segmentis dimidiato-ovatis acutis integerrimis. 



I. Collettii, Hook.f. 



I. nepalensis, D. Don, forma depauperata, Collett $ Hemsl. in Journ. Linn. 

 Soc. vol. xxviii. (1890) p. 136. 



I. nepalensis, D. Bon, var. Letha, Fost. in Gard. Chron. 1892, vol. ii. p. 458. 



Iris Collettii was discovered, at an elevation of four 

 thousand feet, in the Southern Shan hills of Upper Burma, 

 by the late Col. Sir Henry Collett, K.C.B., who, in 1883, sent 

 herbarium specimens of it to Sir George King at the Calcutta 

 Botanic Gardens, some of which were transmitted to Kew. 

 From these it was first published in 1890, by Sir Henry 

 Collett and Mr. Hemsley, in the Journal of the Linnean 

 Society, as a depauperate form of /. nepalensis. In 1891 

 Messrs. Ban* received living plants of it from Lieut.-Col. 

 Stone, collected near Fort White, also in the Shan hills, 

 at an elevation of seven thousand feet. 



Of these latter Sir Michael Foster published a descrip- 

 tion in the Gardeners* Chronicle, where, unaware of the earlier 

 notice, lie gave it the name of i. nepalensis, var. Letha, 

 from that of the mountain on winch it was found. With 

 regard to the discrepancy between the elevations at which 

 the plant is stated to have been collected, I think that the 

 higher, seven thousand feet, is perhaps an error, for Sir 

 Henry Collett, in his preface to the account of his plants 

 in the " Linnean Journal " (p. 14) emphasizes the fact, 

 that though the Shan hills are actually within the tropics, 

 April 1st, 1903. 



