585. 
586. 
581. 
588. 
589, 
353 
the branches. There is no involucre, the heads of 
flowers are exactly globose, and the palez are'as in the 
last species. Fruit exactly that of an Eryngium, slightly 
4-angular, and minutely tuberculated. Styles much 
shorter than in Æ. bupleuroides.—1f characters be after- 
wards found to distinguish this section as a genus, the 
name given by Bertero must be changed, in consequence 
of a previous Lessonia of Bory de St. Vincent; but we 
ourselves cannot perceive any sufficient difference in 
the flower or fruit from those of Eryngium. 
(1. Apium graveolens, Linn.— El Lagunillo, near 
Mendoza, Dr. Gillies. 
(2.) Apium Chilense, (Hook. et Arn.) ; glabrum, caule 
subtereti vix angulato, foliis patentibus bipinnatisectis, 
lobis cuneatis subtrifido-incisis integerrimis, petalis 
apice involutis. — Valparaiso, Mathews (N. 357. in 
herb. Hook.) ; Cuming (N. 44/1.)— Much stouter than A. 
graveolens, and the stem not deeply furrowed, as in that 
species. The leaves resemble those of Petroselinum 
sativum, but are smaller, and more flaccid. The pe- 
duncles, or short lateral branches, are stout and firm. 
The fruit, although far from mature, is more than 
double the size of that of A. graveolens. There are no 
involucra, nor involucella. 
(1.) Petroselinum sativum? Hoffm.— Conception, Messrs. 
Lay and Collie. 
(1.) Helosciadium Jeptophyllum, DeCand.— Pampas of 
Buenos Ayres, Dr. Gillies. Orchards and old culti- 
vated places at Buenos Ayres, Tweedie. ——. 
(2.) Helosciadium laciniatum, DeCand.—za. elatius.— 
Cordillera of Chili, Cuming (N. 250.) Aconcagua, 
Bridges, 1832, (N. 477.) —4. humile.—Valparaiso, Cum- 
ing (N. 588.) ; Bridges, 1832, (N.476.)—We can see no 
other difference between these two varieties than that 
the latter is extremely small, from growing in a more 
VOL, III. Da 
