the point, shorter than the scape: racemes erect, 
flowers short pedicelled, supported by a rather large 
Scariose bract as long as the pedicel: sepals ovato- 
lanceolate, all equal, and beardless: style about the 
length of the stamens, capitate: capsule large, obso- 
letely 3-angled, 3-sided, seed obovate, orbicular, com- 
en winged, shining black. Embryo about the 
ength of the albumen. 
Sea Coast, station not stated. 
This differs in some respects from Roxburgh’s 
description, which unfortunately does not include any 
account of the capsule and seed ; I however, believe 
it is his plant. 
2064. URGENIA CONGESTA (R. W.), leaves linear 
subulate, about the length of the scape: scape erect, 
naked, raceme short, compact: flowers short pedi- 
celled, supported at the base by a short broadish 
obtuse scariose bract: sepals lanceolate, the inner 
slightly smaller: ovary conical: capsule sub-obovate 
or globose, 3-celled : cells few- (3-4) seeded: seeds 
eerie bound all round by a broad wing, shining 
ack. 
Sea Coast, Malabar ? station not mentioned. 
The specimens from which these drawings are taken 
were not collected by me, hence the want of stations. 
They are all referable to the very modern genus 
Urgenia which was separated from Scilla on account 
of its numerous much compressed, not few globose, 
seeds, which is its distinguishing characteristic. 
COMMELYNACEÆ. 
This, in the most favourable circumstances, is a 
difficult order to deal with as regards the discrimina- 
tion of species, and in giving representations of the 
flower can only be done justice to from growing 
plants, hence I infer our comparatively imperfect 
acquaintance with its species. Having myself often 
experienced this difficulty, I think it will be doing 
a service, if I can, by giving representations of a 
considerable number, lighten the labours of others, 
who may wish to undertake their investigation. It 
is rather unfortunate that I delayed entering on 
their examination until this late date, as I have left 
myself neither the time nor room required to do 
them full justice, and what is worse, I have been 
constrained to take many of my drawings from dried 
plants in place of fresh ones. This I regret, but 
such is now my position that it is unavoidable, unless 
Ileave them undone. I have, however, endeavoured 
to compensate for this defect, by greater care, espe- 
cially as regards the analysis. In spite, however, of 
all my care, the relative sizes of parts, as shown in the 
magnified flowers, will sometimes be found defective 
as in several instances they were necessarily taken 
from young flowers artificially opened, and before 
the petaloid series had attained their full develop- 
ment, but the forms in these cases were as accurately 
preserved as it was possible, so that I trust no very 
striking discrepancy between the drawing and fresh 
flower will in any case be found, and as regards the 
outline of the plant I believe it is generally un- 
exceptionable. My materials for illustrating the order 
are so considerable that I could easily have nearly 
doubled the number of subjects represented. I may 
here mention, for the encouragement of parties who 
may have an opportunity of collecting specimens, that 
I have learned in the course of their investigation, 
that much more can be done with dried specimens 
than I previously supposed possible, and would there- 
fore urge their collection, as I feel quite convinced 
that the order is much richer in species than the 
latest publications would lead one to suppose. Rox- 
burgh in his Flora Indica only describes 13, a very 
small number, and only to be accounted for by the 
insufficiency of the characters, as known at the time 
he wrote, for their discrimination. 
At that time all the Indian species, indeed nearly 
the whole order, were grouped under two genera ; one, 
Commelyna, having half the stamens sterile, the other, 
T'radscantia, having them all fertile and the filaments 
bearded. Brown struck off from the former, his 
genus Áneilema, and subsequently Don his Cyanotis 
from the latter. These separations, especially the 
first, gave greater precision to the generic characters, 
and have been followed since then by the addition of 
several well-defined genera. 
Aneilema has already become so over-grown (Kunth 
enumerates 60 species) that it now requires sub-divi- 
sion. This I have attempted in my genus Dictyo- 
spermum, on the principle that, as in the true Anei- 
lemas, the calycine series of stamens are fertile and 
the petaline sterile, so a departure from that arrange- 
ment, indicates such a change of structure as to jus- 
tify generic separation where it occurs. In Dictyo- 
spermum the anterior petaline stamen is polleniferous 
and fertile, and the other two usually suppressed 
along with the posterior calycine one. This is the 
arrangement observed in Commelyna, which has 6 
stamens divided into 2 sets, 3 anterior fertile, 3 pos- 
terior sterile, not, as in Aneilema, alternately fertile 
and sterile. 
This arrangement of the stamens enables us to 
divide the genera struck off from the old genus Com- 
melyna into two well defined groups, viz., anterior or 
petaline stamen, fertile, Commelyne, all the petaline 
stamens sterile, Aneileme. Stamens all fertile and 
anthers conformable, Tradescanteæ. 
Following out that grouping, we have for the first, 
Commelyna, Heterocarpus, Aclesia, T. inantia, Dictyo- 
spermum and Dichorisandra ?; for the second Anei- 
lema, and Dichspermum, and for the third, Callesia, 
Pollia, Lamprocarpus, Dithyrocarpus, Trudescantia, 
Spironema, Cyonotis, and Cartonema. I have separat- 
ed Dichspermum from Aneilema, on the ground of its 
having two rows of seed in each cell, all the other 
species having one only. This I believe forms a 
good generic distinction. He is in like 
manner separated from Commelyna on account of 
difference of its fruit. In Commelyna the capsule 
is 3-celled, in Heterocarpus it is reduced to one, the 
other two aborting and shrivelling into a podocarp, 
to which ۷ fertile indehiscent cell zen Of = 
ropriety of constructing a genus on such groun 
feel less confident than on either of the preceding 
instances, but still I think it a good genus, the more 
so, as it does not rest on a solitary species, and is 
moreover strengthened by the circumstance of the 
two anterior sepals being connate. 
Imay here remark that Kunth in his Enumeratio, 
describes the fertile stamens of Commelyna and others 
of that group as posterior, while I describe them 
as anterior. I do not know how he views the flower, 
but I look at it from behind, and finding the odd 
sepal next the axis call it posterior and as a matter 
of course, the odd petal, being on the opposite side 
of the flower, must be anterior. In to the 
lobes of the perianth, I may remark that, theoretically, 
( 38 ) 
