APPENDIX, 63 



tab. 20^ both being an identical plant of Hartweg^s coUectiou 

 (No. 1312)^ and described by me as Cleochroma calycina {huj, vol. 

 p. 149). This and two other species of his section Physalina are 

 frutescent shrubs, with leaves of more membranaceous texture^ 

 with conspicuous purple fasciculated flowers ; the calyx is much 

 larger than in Tochroma^ tubular, thin in texture, 5-toothcd, in- 

 creasing considerably in size during the development of the flower, 

 becoming ventricose in the middle, and finally enclosing the fruit ; 

 the corolla, of more membranaceous texture, is tubular, and of 

 small diameter at its base, soon expanding above into a broad 

 funnel-shape, with a wide conspicuous border of five large acute 

 lobes, which are plicately valvate in sestivation ; the fruit is a 

 berry, concealed by the membranaceous calyx, which is some- 

 times, but not always, split on one side ; the seeds contain a 

 slender, filiform, almost annular embryo; the yellowish down 

 that invests the flowers of this species consists of simply arti- 

 culated hairs : in Juanulloa the hairs of its dense tomentum are 

 stellately brachiate. The second species of Physalina^ the Juan- 

 ulloa (jrandiflora^ Dun., appears to me to agree well, in all essen- 

 tial respects, with my Cleochroma grandifiora^ figured in plate 32 

 of the previous volume ; it is the lochroma grandifiora^ Benth., and 

 again described by M. Dunal (Prodr- 491) under that name; it 

 seems to differ only in the blade of the leaves being somewhat 

 shorter; and if the dimensions of the calyx, which always increases 

 rapidly with the age of the flower, be taken as that of its ulti- 

 mate growth (as shown in fig. 4 of the plate referred to), all the 

 proportions and floral details will be found to accord completely 

 with those of M. DunaFs description : should it be found, how- 

 ever, to be a distinct species, it may be called Cleochroma Dunalii. 

 Upon the same evidence, Juanulloa rnicrophylla. Dun., will be- 

 come Cleochroma microphylla, nob. M. Dunal includes Cleo- 

 chroma as a section of lochroma : it is undoubtedly much allied 

 to that genus, but I have ofi'ered strong reasons (see p. 147 of 

 the preceding volume) to prove why it should be considered 

 generically distinct. We have only to compare the details given in 

 plates 46, ¥if, 32, 31 and 30 in this and the former volume, to be 

 convinced of the great generic differences between Juanulloa^ 

 Sarcoph7/sa, and Cleochroma^ and of this last from lochroma. 



Codochonia of M. Dunal (Prodr. p. 482), if it be not identical 

 wuth, is evidently alhed most closely to Hebecladus, and not to 

 Atropa^ agreeing with the former in habit, and the aestivation 

 and general structure of its floral parts, differing only in being 

 6-merous, and in having shorter stamens and style, which in 

 other genera (as in Solarium, Capsicum^ and his Witheringia for 

 instance) are not allowed to constitute generic distinctions. 

 With the Sicklera of Dr. Sendtner (Prodr. p. 501) I am not 



