Tierivia Herberti, supra No. 2599. 
_ Lege Cyrruua Herberti. We regret having been supposed (Bot. Reg. 
949) to have committed Mr. Linpey as to the genus of this plant. When 
we altered the trivial name according to his suggestion, we certainly under- 
stood him to agree that it was a Tigridia. Since our article was published, 
we had doubted its being so; and, indeed, whether that genus could be at all 
supported, and had intended to reconsider it next season. Not having had at. 
the time a specimen of T. pavonia, we then referred to the representation of 
that plant in this work, where the anthers are placed opposite the stigmas, - 
_ and between their lobes. We’ think, that our plant must form a new genus 
with some other American species ; and we marvel that Mr. L. should say, 
“ there can be no doubt of its being a genuine species of Mora,” seeing it 
cannot fall under any of the definitions of that genus in this work, or the B. 
Reg.; and Mr. Ker expressly stated, B. Reg. 4. 312. and v. 4. App. that 
the Moras of Kunru alluded to would not be found to. belong to that generic 
group. No Morea or Iris (see Mr. Ker’s enumeration) has stigmas, or 
anthers like in form, or posture, to those of our plant. The whole genus 
Morea (with Iris, of which it is in truth but a section with bulbous roots) — 
have petaloeid stigmas bent downwards, and leaning over the anthers (with 
the exception of M. flexuosa, and perhaps a very few other Morzas, if really — 
such, with filiform convolute stigmas and uniform petals) the anthers of all 
being sloped. Mr. Linpizy’s statement, that Trerip1a is distinguished from 
Morza by its stamens united in a long column, and its bifid, slender, convo- 
lute stigmas is incorrect, witness the column of M. unguiculata, and the 
stigmas of flexuosa. We distinguish Cyreiza from Iris and Morea by erect 
stigmas, neither petaloeid nor filiform, and broad, erect anthers, not sloped, 
bearing the pollen on their edges; distinctions which are confirmed by the 
place of habitation, and the plicate leaves foreign to those genera. We sus- 
pect, that those which conform with fleauosa should be detached from Morea, _ 
or alone retain the name, remitting the rest to Iris. W.H. 
Ee 
rs 
