Tas. 6021, 
PHILODENDRON ruses. 
Native of Venezuela and Trinidad. 
Nat. Ord. Aroinex.—Tribe PHiLopENpRER. 
Genus Puiopenpron, Schott ; (Prodr. Syst. Aroid., p. 219.) 
Puttopznpron rubens; candice robusto suberecto, vaginis stipuleformibus 
amplis ovato-lanceolatis pallide roseis membranaceis persistentibus, 
foliis ovato-cordatis hastatisve acuminatis coriaceis basi profunde 2-lobis 
lobis obtusis sinu lato v. angusto, venis in lobis ad 6, posticis breviter 
denudatis,petiolo gracili cylindraceo elongato superne undulato-asperatis, 
pedunculo brevi, spatha 6-8-pollicari extus albo-virescente intus 
amoene rubro-purpurascente, lamina tubo oblongo-ovoideo paulo ven- 
tricoso sesquilongiore erecta naviculari sensim in cuspidem conicum 
erectam angustata, spadice spatha breviore v. subeequante, parte foeminea 
constricta tertiam v. quartam partem occupante, ovariis 3-4-locularibus 
multi-ovulatis, stigmatibus majusculis. 
PuILODENDRON rubens, Schott, Synops. Aroid., p. 84; Prodr. Aroid., p. 245.” 
T refer this magnificent Aroid to Schott’s P. rubens with 
little doubt, though it differs from his description in the 
length of the spadix, which he describes as being much 
shorter than the spathe, whilst in the Kew plant it equals 
the spathe in length. In all other respects the plants 
accord so well that it is not likely they should specifically 
differ ; and they further come from almost the same country ; 
Schott’s plant, which he describes from cultivated specimens, 
from Venezuela, and the Kew one from the neighbouring 
island of Trinidad, whence it was sent by Dr. Cruger, then 
(in 1866) Superintendent of the Botanic Gardens. As 
Dr. Cruger was in the habit of receiving plants from the 
adjacent coast of Venezuela, and P. rubens is nowhere 
described as a Trinidad plant, it is not impossible that the 
specimen sent to Kew may have come after all from the 
MARCH Ist, 1873. 
