fig. 125, and Baker, Handb. Amaryllid. p. 186) to be a 
garden hybrid whereof A. geminiflora is one parent and 
A, jilamentosa is probably the other—was at once recognised, 
and our plant was therefore tentatively treated as possibly a 
variant of A. geminiflora until it flowered in the Mexican 
House at Kew in November, 1908. Mr. C. H. Wright, by 
whom the plant was then examined, found it to differ from 
A. geminiflora in the colour of its flowers as well as in its 
leaves, which are smooth and subulate in place of being 
narrowly loriform and striate. It appeared to Mr. Wright 
that its nearest ally is A. angustissima, Engelm., first 
named, but not then fully characterised (Trans. St. 
Louis Acad. Sc. vol. iii. p. 306) in 1876, but that it is 
specifically distinct from Engelmann’s plant. A comparison 
with specimens to which Dr. Trelease has attached the name 
A. angustissima, and a study of the figure and description 
of that species supplied by Dr. J. N. Rose (Garden and 
Forest, vol. iii. pp. 5 and 6) in 1893 have satisfied Mr. 
Drummond that Mr. Wright’s conclusions are justified. 
Though allied to A. angustissima, A. Wrightii differs from 
that plant by the shorter, less constricted perianth-tube, by 
the yellow in place of purple anthers, by the less flattened 
leaf-blade which has the upper face channelled inside either 
margin, by the broader leaf-neck and by the much wider 
and much more abruptly shouldered leaf-base. As regards 
floral structure, Mr. Drummond points out that A. Wrightii 
approaches most closely to the plant figured as A. gemini- 
flora (Bot. Reg. t. 1145) in 1828; from that plant 
A. Wrightii is readily distinguished by its much wider and 
more gibbous leat-base; but, except in having white in 
place of coloured filaments, hardly differs as regards flowers. 
The plant thus depicted by Lindley is not, however, A. 
geminiflora, Scannag., and to distinguish it Mr. Drummond 
suggests the employment of the name A. Knightiana. It 
may be added that this species has remained not only 
unnamed, but undescribed, for the description associated 
with it in the Botanical Register has not been based on, 
and does not apply to, the plant there figured, but has been 
taken, unmodified, from the reprint in the second volume of 
the Journal of Science (1817) of the original account of 
Littaea geminiflora published by Tagliabue (Bibl. Ital. vol. 1. 
p- 9) in 1816. : 
