branches having the same pubescence as on the stem. Ca- 
~ Iyx-segments broadly ovate, subacute, spreading, densely 
covered with both kinds of pubescence on the outside, with 
the glandular only on the inner, entire, nerved, nerves gene- 
rally five. Corolla with short glandular pubescence over 
the whole of the outer surface, most conspicuous on the 
upper lip, glabrous within, except at the insertion of the 
stamens, where there are a few hairs, yellow, sprinkled 
with orange-brown spots on the upper part of the lower 
lip, and on its inner side near the throat, the spots being 
there larger and round, in the former situation smaller and 
oblong, while in that part of the lower lip which is inflected 
in the throat they become streaks. Upper lip small, semi- 
lunar, compressed upon the calyx, cucullate in the centre; 
lower lip very large, inflated, about a third of its lower 
surface parallel to the calyx, the remainder at right angles 
to this, and the upper surface forming an inclined plane 
from the throat, crenate at its lower part, the number of 
crenatures varying from three to five, and each frequently 
emarginate, the inflected portion of the lower lip flat at right 
angles to its upper surface. Stamens erect, subexserted ; 
filaments conical, slightly curved downwards, somewhat 
compressed, and having upon their surface a few erect, 
_ Short, glandular hairs; anthers large, pale yellow, lobes 
divaricated, equal, deeply furrowed on their outsides ; pollen 
cream-coloured. Pistil longer than the stamens ; stigma 
small, glandular, capitate ; style glabrous, slightly curved 
| downwards ;- germen glanduloso - pubescent, shape and 
structure as in the Genus ; placenta large ; ovules very nu- 
_ Inerous. t 
There is no species of this beautiful Genus which forms so striking a0 
object in the greenhouse as this. How far it will bear cultivation n 
_the open air, we have yet to ascertain. I can see no reason whatever 
_ for the specific distinction between Canceotarta crenatiflora and C. 
pendula which is attempted to be drawn in the British Flower Garden. 
The chief distinction stated is the difference of the number of the crena- 
tures in the lower lip, and the flowers being pendulous or suberect. The 
former character I find to vary continually in the flowers even on the 
same corymb ; and the latter seems to me to depend solely on the degree 
a luxuriance produced by cultivation. I have both plants 
ME rae Low, who first raised them from seeds gathered in Chiloe by 
‘I. ANDERSON, and who furnished the plant figured as CALCEOLARIA 
pendula in the British Flower Garden, and I cannot see a shade of differ- 
=o them. The impropriety of unnecessarily changing names is 
‘the lutely caricatured by Prrsoon, who, knowing the plant only through 
the bad figure of Cavanitxes, imagined the lower lip to be flat, not 
nuated, as in the Genus, and therefore rejecting the name of Cava- 
NILLES, descriptive of a form found in, though not peculiar to, the spe- 
cies, he gave a name applicable only to the figure. Graham. 
