bv him that it grew wild about Mexico, and was much culti- 

 vated for its exceffive beauty and for the medicinal virtues of 

 its root ; being, as he terms it, " a frigefactent in fevers, and 

 " alfo a promoter of fecundity in women." Both Hernandez 

 and M. De Brancion, from whom Lob el derived his know- 

 ledge of the plant, obferve that the root is efculent. All the 

 other old authors appear to have borrowed what they have 

 faid from thefe two fources, except perhaps De Bry, who 

 fays he received it (probably meaning the drawing) from 

 Caspar Bauhin. The author of this figure, though it was 

 publiftied before the Rome edition of the Mexican hiltory, ap- 

 pears to have had accefs to the drawing of Hernandez, as 

 the form of the flower is the fame, only four roots are crowded 

 together. The more modern authors ieem to have made their 

 descriptions and figures from no other authority except a 

 dried fpecimen in the poffeffion of Jussieu. That of Mutis, 

 cited by the younger Linnaeus, we have not feen, and has 

 not, we believe, been as yet publiftied. 



For the poffeffion of this fuperb flower, this country, and 

 perhaps Europe, is indebted to Ellis Hodgson, Efq. of 

 Everton, near Liverpool, with whom it flowered and produced 

 ripe feeds about five years ago. From this gentleman, feeds 

 were communicated to Meffrs. Grimwood and Wykes, 

 and by them it has been difperfed among other Nurferymen. 

 There is little fear but that it will foon become very common, 

 as it flowers freely, produces feeds in abundance, and maybe 

 likewife increafej by olivets from the roots. It has no fcent, 

 but in fplendid beauty it appears to us, at leaft when affitled 

 by rarity and Angularity, to furpafs every competitor; *'$ 

 lament that this too affords our fair countrywomen another 

 lefTon, how extremely fugacious is this lovelinefs of form; 

 born to difplay its glory but for a few hours, it literally 

 melts away. 



By the alteration made by Willdenow in the generic 

 character of Ferraiua, this may be included; but the trivial 

 name of puvivia, injudicioufly adopted from a fuppofed re- 

 femblance to the Iris pavoni,i y figured by Jacquin (not the 

 Iris papula of the Botanical Magazine) is totally inadmiflible, 

 the colours being in no refpeQ Gmilar to thofe of the peacock ; 

 we have, therefore"; as nearly as could be clone in one word, 

 reftored the original, name. We have, an additional n*#l v f t0 

 do fo from the conhderation, that fhould it be hereafter thought 

 neceOary to make it a diltinft genus from Eerraria, the 

 name of Tigridia, already applied by Jussieu, would un- 

 doubtedly be given it. " ' 



Desc 



