$2 Dr, S vv A R T z' s Botanical Hijlory 



and bulbofa are nearefl related; they have both their exterior corol- 

 line glumes much wrinkled, but the latter is very diflincl becaufe 

 of its arljlce. The defcription is a copy of Monf. Richard's, made 

 from a living fpecimen out of a garden in France. He attrilmtes 

 to it only three flamina, which I will not difpute, but fhould wifh 

 for a further inquiry when the plant comes under future confider- 

 ation. The figure given by the author, though not good, gives an 

 idea of the real fpecific difference. 



HAVING thus endeavoured to illuftrate all the known Ehrharta^ 

 it may not be improper to add concife defcriptions of the remaining 

 two Cape Me/ic^ mentioned by Profeflbr Thunberg in his Prodromus, 

 in order to {how that they are true fpecies of Melicay and not to be 

 referred to the above genus, left it fliould be fuppofed there were no 

 real Melica: in that part of the world. 



MELICA decumbens. 



M. corollis hirfutis, fioribus racemofis nutantibus, culmo decum- 

 bente. Thunb. prodr. 21. Sp. plant, ed. Wild, p. 382—4, 



Descr. Culmus decumbens, teres, fubfiliformis, glaber. Genkula 



glabra. 



Folia conferta, bafi fubimbricantia, ere^a, lanceolato-li- 



nearia, apice involuto-fubulata, glabra. Vagina ftriatse. 



Flores racemoli, fecundi, pedicellati, femipollicares, nutantes 



in racemo terminali, eredto, bipoUicari, indivifb. 

 Calyx bivalvis. 



Yalvulie ovats acuminatas carinatae, flriatse, nervof^e, gla- 

 brae, membranaceae, flavefcentes, bafi purpurafcentes ; 

 exterior triplo minor- 



4 Glumct 



