139 



p. 291 of the same volume, when, under the class and 

 order Moncecia Polyandria, the generic character is 

 thus given : 



" Colliguaja (gen. nov.) Masc. Cat. 4-fidus. Cor. 0. Stam. 8. 



F.Esr. Cal. 4^fidiis. Cor. 0. Styli 3. Capsula angularis," probably 

 intended for triangularis, " 3-sperma." 



This is immediately followed by the name of the species, 

 Colliguaja odorifera, but without any specific character. 



In all probability a more full description is given in some 

 of the foreign editions of Molina, especially the French. 

 Adrian de Jussieu, indeed, knew the plant only from Molina's 

 Hist. Nat. de Chili, p. 129, as he himself acknowledges ; 

 yet speaks of the " sJwub being branched : the leaves opposite, 

 thick, glabrous, denticulated : the flowers axillary, the male 

 amentaceous, and the female placed beneath them." Adr. 

 de Juss. De Euphorb. gen. p. 62. inter Genera Euphorbiacea 

 nwms cognita. 



I know not that any other author has noticed the specific 

 character except Sprengel, who, in his Systema Vegetabilium, 

 has included it under the name of Croton Colliguay Molin. 

 with the following definition : " Cr. foliis oppositis subsessili- 

 bus lanceolatis denticulatis carnosis scabris, spicis axillaribus, 

 calycibus ^ 4-fidis." It is most likely that all this rests upon 

 the authority of Molina himself, and as such I employ it 

 to distinguish his original Colliguay. 



All we yet know of the genus possess a peculiar habit, 

 and all are called indifferently Colliguay by the natives. 

 The first species which Dr. Gillies sent to me, for example, 

 (C. integrifolia^ nobis) is not the Colliguay of Molina: and yet 

 the native name Colliguay was attached to it. This indeed 

 is the only specimen which I possess with flowers, and these 

 are certainly at variance with the description of Molina, 

 especially the male flowers. Nevertheless, so closely are all 

 their species allied in habit, that I am inclined to believe all 

 will be found to possess the same essential marks, and that 

 Molina, in consequence of the small size of the flowers, has 

 been led into error in his account of them. From the result 



