the stem and foliage are altogether those of that genus (a native 
of South Africa) ; but the flowers are extremely different, and we 
have little hesitation in considering the plant to form a new genus, 
Littonia,—a tribute to the memory of the late Dr. Samuel Litton, 
for twenty-one years Professor of Botany in the Royal Dublin 
Society, a deeply learned and amiable man, and a popular lecturer. 
The modest appearance of this plant, in contrast with its very near 
ally the “‘ Gloriosa superba,” Linn., may further serve to indicate 
his unassuming and retiring disposition, which, as has been re- 
corded by the Council of the Royal Dublin Society, “ prevented 
his taking that rank in general society to which his acquirements 
entitled him.” The shape of the sepals, their direction, the scaly 
nectary, the stamens, the style, and stigmas, all tend to keep 
this genus distinct from Methonica. It flowered in the stove of 
the Royal Gardens in April, 1853, within three months after the 
tubers were planted. 
Duscr. The tubers are exceedingly curious. An old fully- 
formed one is larger than a Spanish Chestnut, and somewhat 
of the same shape, but having two projecting lobes or horns 
pointing downwards, with a few capillary fibres in the centre 
beneath. When this is planted, a new white obconical tuber is 
formed from the apex of one of these lobes, and which, if [ may 
so say, is inverted, the broad upper side bemg downwards, 
giving rise to the stem, while the narrow apex throws out @ 
There is no definition ; the citation therefore, in a controversial discussion, is, to 
say the least, inappropriate, being without weight or argument.’ Now, so far 
from Hermann giving no definition, there is a very good description of his Metho- 
nica Malabarorum in his Hort. Academ. Lugd. Batav. p. 688, and a very good 
figure (tab. or rather page 689) annexed, which is similarly inscribed, ‘ Me¢honica 
Malabarorum.’ More than that, the peculiar shape of the root of the plant is well 
figured, and also described in these words: ‘ formi accionem*, seu literam T, ex 
duobus quasi brachiis cohzrentem, referente, etc.’ Now so remarkable is this 
shape of the root, that the Sanskrita and the Bengali names of the* plant are 
derived from it: ‘Langulisha,’ Sanskr.; ‘Ishor-Langula,’ Beng.; meaning the 
handle or governor of a plough. In fact, the root resembles quite that perfec- 
tion of primitive simplicity, a native plough, Finally, Hermann quotes as @ 
synonym, ‘ Lilium zeylanicum superbum, vulgo.’ Now, was ever authority for 
a name more perfect or incontrovertible? Methonica ought to be adopted, and 
not that barbarissimum nomen, Gloriosa; and the specific name ought to be 
Malabarorum, and not superba. (1 should not be surprised that the Malabar de- 
rivation of Hermann will be verified: I will make inquiries.) Is not the same 
author's Adhatoda in the identical work, and only a few pages previously, p- 642. 
f. 643, adopted as a specific name—now a generic one? ‘Tournefort, in Mé- 
moires de Acad. Royale des Sciences (called ‘A. G.,’ é. e. Acta Gallica) pour 
1707, p. 86. tab. 7. fig. (5) excellent (the curious root again separately re- 
presented),—Ray, Hist. vol. ii. p. 1915,—Boerh. Index alter, vol. ii. p. 134: 
all the above have Methonica Malabarorum for the name of our plant. Finally, 
Linneus in Hortus Cliffort. p. 121, quotes Methonica Malabarorum, Herm., 
Tournef., Boerhaave, Dill. gen., Commelyn Fl. et Plukenet.”” 
* : j i 
: T cannot make out what “accio” means; none of my Latin or Greek dic* 
tionaries give me any clue. 
