Tas. 4812. 
ESCHSCHOLTZIA tenutro.ta. 
Slender-leaved Eschscholtzia. Se 
Nat. Ord. PaAPAVERACE®.—POLYANDRIA TETRAGYNIA. 
Gen. Char. Receptaculum ampliatum, hypocrateriforme, limbo expanso integro. 
Calyx mitreformis, caducus. Corolla tetrapetala, petalis unguibus fauci recep- 
taculi insertis, staminiferis. Capsula siliqueeformis, bivalvis: semina marginibus 
valvarum affixa. De Cand. 
EscuscHourzia tenuifolia ; foliis ceespitosis, segmentis lineari-subulatis, pedun- 
-_culis elongatis erectis, toro tubuloso-campanulato limbo nullo, calyce brevi- 
et subobtuse mucronato. 
Escuscuotrzta tenuifolia. Benth. in Trans. Hort. Soc. 2nd ser. v. 1. p. 408. 
Walp. Repert. Bot. v. 1. p. 116. 
Curysets tenuifolia. Lindl. MS. Torr. et Gr. N. Am. Fl. v. 1. p. 63. 
Botanists have been divided in regard to the propriety or ne- 
cessity of changing the name of Mschscholtzia to that of Chryseis. _ 
Dr. Lindley (Bot. Reg. under Tab. 1948) proposed and adopted — 
the latter name, and gives the authority of a botanical friend for 
stating that the original name, Eschscholtzia, Chamisso, is the 
same with Hlsholtzia (the different spelling being an error of 
the press) of Willdenow, among Ladiate ; and that Willdenow's — 
Elsholtz and Chamisso’s Hschscholtz are father and son. I 
know not on what authority this statement is made. One would 
almost wish it were correct, so as to justify such a change. 
But Dr. Asa Gray, who had adopted this view in his and Dr. 
Torrey’s ‘ Flora of North America,’ vol. i. p. 63, has the following 
observation in the Supplement to the same volume, p. 664. 
“We are informed by several distinguished German Botanists 
that the Hsholtz, to whom the genus Hsholizia was dedicated 
by Willdenow, and Zschscholtz, the companion of Chamisso, — 
were not father and son, nor of the same family or name. If . 
this be the case, it becomes a question whether the similarity be- 
tween Elsholizia and Eschscholtzia is so great as to justify the 
OCTOBER lst, 1854. 
