Tas. 4783. 
IMANTOPHYLLUM? miniartum. 
Brick-coloured Imantophyllum. 
Gen. Char. IMANTOPHYLLUM*, Perianthium superum corollaceum, 6-parti- 
tum, patenti-campanulatum, tubo brevissimo, laciniis late obovato-lanceolatis 
subeequalibus, 3 int. paulo majoribus. Stamina 6. Filamenta crassa, subulata, 
patentia, summo tubo inserta, perianthii laciniis subbreviora. Anthere versatiles, 
brevi-oblonge. Ovarium inferum trigonum, 3-loculare, doculis oligospermis, 
ovula subsex in quolibet loculo biseriatis, angulo interno affixa. Sty/us crassus, 
- decurvato-adscendens, perianthio longior. Stigma 3-fidum. Capsula carnosa, 1n- 
dehiscens. Semina (abortione) in singulo loculo solitaria, bulbiformia, rugosa, 
subpulposa, magnitudine seminis Fae vulgaris (horse-bean).—Herba acaulis. 
Radix ¢ fibris numerosis fasciculatis carnosis crassis. Folia radicalia ampla lorata 
disticha, basi latissima amplewante. Scapus plano-convewus, latus, apice umbellato- 
multiflorus. Spatha polyphylla, marcescens, colorata. Flores ampli, miniati, uni- 
colores, pediceliati, bracteolati ; bracteolis linearibus, longitudine fere pedicellorum. 
IMANTOPHYLLUM? miniatum. 
VALLota? miniata. Lindl. in Gardeners’ Chron. 1854, p.119; and at p. 149, 
observations by Mr. Backhouse. — 
A flowering specimen of this fine Amaryllidaceous plant was 
exhibited at a meeting of the Horticultural Society in February 
of the present year; and in the following month the Messrs. 
Backhouse, of the York Nursery, who imported the plant from 
Natal}, obligingly forwarded from their greenhouse the specimen 
here represented. Dr. Lindley noticed the plant doubtfully as a 
Vallota: it wants the peculiar duplicature of the faux of the 
corolla of that genus, and it has not a bulbous root. Mr. Back- 
house agrees with us that it is nearer Cha than Vallota: so 
near, that I am not sorry to transfer one of the two generic 
* Not Imatophyllum (more correctly Imantophyllum) of ourselves, at Tab, 2856. 
It was unfortunate that that plate of J. Aitoni appeared on the same. day on 
which the same plant was figured by Dr. Lindley in the ‘ Botanical Register’ as 
Clivia nobilis. The name may, we think, thus with propriety be transferred to 
the present genus, a near ally of, but certainly distinct from, Clivia, Lindl. 
x + We have ourselves also received living plants of the same direct from 
atal. . 
MAY Ist, 1854, 
