664 SUPPLEMENT.— PAP AVERAGES. 



Order NELUMBIACEiE. 



NELUMBIUM, p. 56. 



1. N. luleum. — Add. syn. Hook. hot. mag. t. 3753. Cyamus luteus, Bart, 

 fl. N. Amer. t. 63. — The plant is not found at Haddam, Connecticut, accord- 

 ing to Prof. TuUy ; but at Lyme (Seldon's Cove) 10 miles below Haddam. 

 Itis also found at Swedesborough Creek in New Jersey, 40 miles below 

 Philadelphia. 



Order SARRACENIACE.^. 



Mr. Bentham has recently described a new genus of this order (Heliamphora, 

 Benth.), founded on a plant discovered by Mr. Scliomburgk in Guiana, at an ele- 

 vation of 6,000 feet. It differs from Sarracenia chiefly in wanting the petals and 

 the dilated stigma, in the smaller number of cells to the ovary, and in bearing 

 several flowers on the scape. 



Order PAPAVERACEiE. 



7. CHRYSEIS, p. 63. (Eschscholzia, Cham.) 



We are informed by several distinguished German botanists that the Elscholtz 

 to whom the genus Elscholtzia was dedicated by VVilldenow, and Eschsckoltz, 

 the companion of Chamisso, were not father and son, nor of the same family or 

 name. If this be the case, it becomes a question whether the similarity between 

 Elscholtzia and Eschscholtzia is so great as to justify the change proposed by Dr. 

 Lindley, and which we have adopted. 



In the Supplement to the Botany of Capt. Beechey's Voyage, as well as in a 

 previous letter to us, Flooker & Arnott have sliown that the original Eschscholtzia 

 Californica of Chamisso is the E. crocea of Bsntham and other authors. This is 

 evident as well from the figure published by Chamisso, which represents the dila- 

 ted limb of the torus, as from tlie fact that this species is found in California; 

 while the E. Californica of English botanists (the plant introduced by Douglas) is 

 a native of Oregon exclusively. This view we were last summer enabled to verify 

 by an examination of Chamisso's original specimen. If then the two species are 

 really distinct (and we think that the dilated torus will distinguish the Californian 

 plant) it becomes absolutely necessary to transfer the name ' Californica' to Cha- 

 misso's plant. This Hooker and Arnott have done, proposing also to distinguish 

 the Oregon plant by the name of Chryseis (Eschscholtzia) Douglasii. Adopting 

 this view, the synonymy of the two species will stand thus : 



1. C. {Eschscholtzia) Douglasii (Hook. & Am. 1. c.) (Add the character 

 under our C. Californica) — Chryseis Calitbrnica, Lincll.-, and of this icork^ 

 p. 63; wotoi Hook. Sf Am. Eschscholtzia Californica, Lindl.l hot. reg. t. 

 1168; Hook. I hot. mag. t. 2887, &; fi. Bor.-Am. 1. ^a 34.— Oregon! (not 

 California.) 



2. C. (Eschscholtzia) Californica (Hook. & Arn.) (Character under C. 

 crocea, p. 63.) — Chry.seis crocea, Lincll.! hot. reg. under t. 1948. C. com- 

 pacta, Lindl.! hot. reg. t. 1948. Eschscholzia Californica, Cham.! ^' Nees, 

 horcephys. Berol. Sj- Bonn, p. 73, t. 15; Cham. Sf Scldccht. ! in Linnaa, I. p. 

 554 ; not oi Lindl., Hook. S^-c. E. crocea, Benth.! in hort. trans, [ser. 2) 1., 

 p. 407 ; Lindl.! hot. reg. t. 1677 ; Brit. fl. gard. {ser. 2) t. 299— California*. 



Chamisso! Menzies! Douglas! &c. 



