46 



Dansk Botanisk Arkiv, Bd. 2. Nr. 8. 



distributed in S. Australia, and as Reader's plant came from 

 Victoria, the species seems to be distributed in the southern 

 extra-tropical Australia from east to west. 



Combining what the descriptions give with 

 my examination of the specimens collected by 

 Preiss, J. M. Black and Mrs. Davis, and the cul- 

 tivated plants, I give the following description of 

 the plant (see fig. 14): An erect 5 — 8 cm high, 

 branched succulent annual, branches and stem 

 ending in --J- long (often very long) and somewhat 

 interrupted inflorescences. Leaves very succulent, 

 ovate-oblong, obtuse, often mucronate, 2 — 3 mm 

 long. Flowers in axillary dense clusters, sessile, 

 or the older ones very shortly stalked, 5-merous. 

 Sepals very succulent, broadly triangular-ovate, 

 very acute with somewhat corrodate margin ; petals 

 linear-lanceolate, acuminate, white-pellucid, about 

 as long as the sepals. Carpels, when ripe, much 

 exceeding the sepals, oblique-ovate, acute-aristate 

 with a nearly straight beak; seeds 2 in each car- 

 pel, brown. Nectary scales minute, linear-clavate 

 (se fig. 10 d). 



The species is related to the following, and 

 to some South-African species of the Muscosa 

 group (Sfhönland, 1. c), e. g. C. campestris Endl. 

 In W. A. it is known from Preiss's two localities 

 ("In arenosis haud longe ab opp. Freemantle" and 

 "In arenosis silvæ prope opp. Perth") and from 

 Mrs. Davis's collection, all three localities lying 

 near Perth. 



Geogr. area: Victoria, S. and W. Australia. 



6. Crassula intricata (Nees) comb. nov. ; Tillæa 

 intricata Nees ab Esenbeck, in Lehmann, PI. Preiss. 

 I 2 (1844) 278. 



F cftoJL C ( r Nee^ a In the herbarium of Lund (Sweden) I have 



Ostf., cultivated examined a specimen of Preiss's no. 1929: " Tillæa 

 y lNat P 5 en " (Bulliarda) intricata N. ab E. In arenoso-conchy- 

 liosis humidis prope lacum insulæ Rottennest, Aug. 

 19. 39". The specimen is a rather poor one, but careful observation 

 makes it possible to compare the plant with Nees's description 

 (1. c). On the whole they agree with each other, but in one 



