50 MR. KIPPIST ON TWO SPECIES OF GENETYLLIS. 



In the structure of its flowers, and more particularly in the 

 extremely minute and nearly obsolete calyx-lobes, as well as in 

 the form of the style and hispid stigma, this species, which I have 

 much pleasure in naming after the indefatigable author of the 

 paper just read, agrees with the preceding : in habit it most nearly 

 approaches G. helichrysoides, Meisn., which, however, is readily 

 distinguished by its smaller size, less branched stems, triquetrous 

 serrulate leaves, gradually tapering bracts, and much more con- 

 spicuous elliptical calyx-lobes. No. 101 of Drummond's 5th col- 

 lection seems to be merely a less luxuriant state of the same 

 plant, with more thinly scattered leaves, and paler bracts and 

 flowers ; but I have been unable to detect any difference of struc- 

 ture sufficiently important to justify its separation as a distinct 

 species. 



In conclusion, I may, perhaps, be allowed to add a few words, 

 by way of endorsing the opinion expressed by Dr. Meisner in the 

 foregoing paper, viz. that the Genetyllis macrostegia of the ' Bo- 

 tanical Magazine ' (t. 4860) does not appear to be the plant 

 originally described under that name by Turczaninow ; an opinion 

 at which I had arrived prior to the receipt of Dr. Meisner' s MS., 

 but which, without such a confirmation, I should scarcely have 

 ventured to express in opposition to those of Dr. Lindley and Sir 

 "William Hooker. The former, however, evidently entertained 

 some doubts on the point, as he suggests, when writing on the 

 Genetyllis tulipifera (his Hedarome tulipiferum) , that that plant 

 should be compared with the G. macrostegia of Turczaninow. A con- 

 stant interchange of publications having been carried on between 

 the Linnean Society and the Natural History Society of Moscow, 

 I have fortunately been enabled to refer to Turczaninow' s original 

 paper in the ' Bulletin' of that Society for the year 1849 ; and a 

 comparison of his description (at tome xxii. pt. 2. p. 18) with 

 Mr. Saunders's very complete set of Swan River Chamcelauciece, 

 in which Drummond's Nos. (quoted in the Moscow ' Bulletin,' 

 but omitted by Walpers) have been carefully preserved, and the 

 different series distinguished, as well as with the descriptions and 

 figures of the two species given in the ' Botanical Magazine ' for 

 July last, has satisfied me that the plant with broad party-coloured 

 bracts, described and figured at tab. 4858 as a new species, under 

 the name of G. tulipifera, is identical with G. macrostegia, Turcz. ; 

 while the narrow-leaved plant with self-coloured bracts (t. 4860), 

 to which Sir W. Hooker assigns that name, was probably unknown 

 to the Russian botanist, since it does not occur in Drummond's 



