260 Mr.D. Dow's Descriptions of new Genera and Species 
Frutices (Amer. Austr.) scandentes, Vicias facie emulantes. Folia 
alterna, pinnata v. simplicia, apice cirrho (foliolis abortivis 
aut coste elongatione) pinnate partito v. simplici, spirali in- 
structa! Flores solitarii, magni, speciosi, purpurei v. lutei. 
The presence or absence of the labellum in the rays is evi- 
dently a character of no importance in this genus. Its muta- 
bility even in species otherwise intimately allied, shows that it 
cannot be employed with advantage as a sectional distinction ; 
and in those species where it is less developed, I hardly think it 
of specific importance. ‘The younger Linneus in his description 
of Mutisia Clematis appears to have mistaken the two lobes of 
the labellum for the rudiments of stamina. Humboldt and Bon- 
pland have represented and described their Mutisia grandiflora 
(Pl. Eq.1. t. 50.) as having the florets of the disk tubular, and 
equally five-toothed. This is clearly an error, for the origin of 
which it is difficult to account, as we know of no species with a 
similar structure; and indeed this character, if really present, 
would alone be sufficient to justify its removal from Mutisia: but 
its evident affinity to M. Clematis, which would also have led us 
to expect the presence of an interior labellum in the rays, in- 
: ducen usto reject this opinion, : and to regard the description and 
fig th lantes, nns 02 s iles. as. erroneous in à these respects. 
I am Bees. satisfied etd ins S : ot 
served in the Linnzean beris appears to approach : very near 
to it, even as regards the size of the flower, which is erroneously 
compared by the younger Linnzus to the Dianthus caryophyllus. 
They | both. agree in having the leaflets on distinct footstalks, 
which. the plant efiCananilles appears to want ential This 
ince! t remarkable Thorens in TM i is s the number of. f 
in 
| 
4 
| 
i 
f 
} 
f 
