This plant is certainly the same species as the female 
imen figured from the collection of Messrs Loppiegs, in 
Botanical Cabinet, t. 1017, under the name of N. distzlla- 
toria, and in Bot. Mag. t. 2629, under the name of N. Phyl- 
lamphora. What Lixnzus meant by his Nv distillatoria 
does not certainly appear, for he refers to the CanTHARIFERA 
of Rumpatvs’s Herbarium Amboinense, v. 5. t. 59. f. 2. 
and to the Panpura Seylanica of Burmann’s 'TuxEsAurus 
Zeylanicus, t. 17.—figures of plants which differ altogether 
from each other, as the first, at least, does from the subject 
of the present article. If any conclusion could be drawn 
from the bad figures of Piuxenerius and Grimm, to which 
reference is also made by Lannaus, 1 should believe that 
these also differ from the present species. The inflores- 
cence in PiuKenetivus is copied exactly from Grimm, and is 
certainly in great part imaginary; the rest of the figure 
— to be modified from his having seen a dried leaf 
and pitcher, which, however, are much more reticulated than 
with us. Our plant differs from the description of Payt- 
LAMPHORA of Loureiro in the stem being branched, the 
leaves veinless and scattered, the inflorescence a lateral 
raceme, in which the pedicels are frequently bifid, support- 
ing two flowers, and in the anthers being more numerous. 
In Lovremo’s plant, the stem is described as simple, the 
leaves lineato-veined and opposite, the inflorescence a ter- 
minal, perfectly simple spike. Our plant, however, has 
only produced two branches besides the leading shoot ; and 
this tendency may possibly have been given by its top 
having been injured several months ago. ‘The universality 
of the buds in the axils of the leaves, however, makes me 
believe in the branching being natural. Near the extre- 
mity of each of the three shoots a raceme is produced. Our 
plant farther differs from Louremo’s description, in the lid 
never closing after it once opens; but the power of alter- 
nate opening and closing, even in his plant, was, probably 
imaginary, as his statement of the pitchers receiving the 
night-dews certainly is. The fluid which they contain is 
undoubtedly a secretion, but for what purpose does not 
appear. It is stated to have nearly filled one-third of the 
pitcher in Messrs. Loppiexs’ plant; but with us it never 
much exceeded a drachm, even in the largest pitchers, 
oe Se Mag pire five drachms. The out- 
Sure in Bot. _& is ve ood; but the 
detached pitcher is much too Corirkebad Mi ie upper half, 
and the lid is not nearly so flat as it always is ier : has 
zat een 
