Tas. 4723. 
LITTONIA mopesva. 
Unassuming Lattonia. 
Nat. Ord. UvuLarizr#.—Hexanpria Monoeynia. 
Gen. Char. Perianthium subcampanulatum, hexsepalum, sepalis oblongo-acu- 
minatis subearinatis concavis erecto-patentibus intus basi poro nectarifero utrin- 
que squamula parva marginata. Stamina 6, hypogyna, libera, perianthio breviora. 
Filamenta subulata, glabra. Anthere oblongo-sagittate, obtuse, basifixee, bilo- 
culares, /oculis lateraliter rima longitudinali dehiscentes. Connectivum amplum. 
Ovarium ovale, longitudinaliter trisuleatum, lobis linea media longitudinali de- 
pressa notatis, 3-loculare, pluriovulatum, ovulis biseriatim angulo interiori loculi 
affixis. Stylus longitudine fere ovarii, erectus, strictus, apice profunde trifidus, 
lobis reflexis; stigmata obtusa, pubescentia. Fructus . . . —Herba scandens 
Natalensis. Radix tuberosa, tubere inferne bilobo, lobo unico tuber novellum pro- 
deunte. Caulis scandens, simplex, teres, herbaceus, foliosus. Folia inferiora ter- 
natim verticillata, superiora opposita, omnia lanceolata, longe tenuissime acuminata, 
glabra, parallelim venosa, striata, apice cirrhifera. Pedunculi breves, axillares, so- 
litarii, uniflori. Flores nutantes, aurantiaci. 
LITToNnra modesta. 
Two numbers back (Tab. 4716) we had the pleasure of 
figuring’ a new Liliaceous plant from Natal, and naming it after 
its discoverer, John Sanderson, Hsq., of that colony. ‘The same 
gentleman detected in that colony our present plant, of which 
tubers were sent to the Natal Garden, and thence by Mr. M‘Ken 
to us, as a new species of Methonica* (Gloriosa, Linn.). True 
* We readily concur in Dr. Wight’s views, expressed in the last volume of his ad- 
mirable ‘ Icones Plantarum Indi Orientalis,’ vol. vi. p. 25, inreferring Methonica 
and its allies, including Sandersonia, at Tab. 4716, to Voulariee, rather than to 
Liliacee. We wish we could say as much in favour of his views respecting the 
preference given to Gloriosa, Linn., over Methonica, Herm. But here it 1s only 
Justice to Dr. Wallich to copy a memorandum, with which he has just gone oe 
us, on the subject. “In my humble judgment,” he writes, “ our friend \ ight 
is quite wrong in regard to Methonica and Gloriosa (sce his long description mn 
Icones Plant. Ind. Orient. vol. vi. p. 23). He says, ‘ Turning now to Hermann — 
for his definition of the genus, on which only he is entitled to claim the paternity 
of the name, all we find is ‘ Methonica Malabarorum’—Methonica of the Malabars. 
JULY lst, 1853. 
