Lambertiane. ) Tab. 26. 
THEOPHRASTA JUSSIAL 
Nar. Orv. Strychnee. Br. Linn. Syst. Pentandria Monogynia. 
THEOPHRASTA, Juss., Swartz., non Linn. Cal. 5-partitus, persistens, laciniis imbricatis. Corolla obtusa, cylin- 
drico-campanulata, 5-loba, lobis imbricatis rotundatis. Corona versus basin corolle inserta, 5-phylla, foliolis cu- 
neatis, dorso clypeatis, carnosis, infra medium connatis, lobis corollee oppositis. Stamina 5, distincta, basi coronz 
inserta, foliolisque ejus alterna. Anthere in conum conniventes, extrorse, innate, apiculate, biloculares, longitu- 
dinaliter dehiscentes. Ovarium liberum, 2-loculare, loculis polyspermis. Stylus simplex. Stigma capitatum, 
2-lobum. Bacca subpulposa, |-locularis, polysperma, cortice fragili. Semina plurima, receptaculo centrali, stipitato 
inserta, ovata, versus extremitatem majorem hilum papilliformem gerentia. Testa mucilaginea, tenuis, facilé se- 
parabilis. Embryo in albumine corneo, extra axilis ; radicula cylindrica hilo proxima: cotyledonibus ovatis planis. 
 Arbuscula caule simplici: folia confertim subverticillata, maxima, longa, dentato-spinosa ; (spinule axillares, 
minime, verticillate, cauli appresse, mdx caduce ;) ex D. Lahaye apud Domingenses Parocho ; flores inter fo- 
lia conferto-corymbosz, terminales. Juss. Gen. 150.” 
'THEOPHRASTA JUSSIAL. | 
Theophrasta americana. Herb. Desf. Juss. non Linn. 
Descr. Folia ad extremitates ramorum congesta, sessilia, oblongo-lanceolata, undulata, inequaliter antrorsim retrorsim- 
que spinoso-dentata, rigida, nitidissima, subenervia, marginata, subverticillata, stipulé ? acerosd, subulata, decidua, interme- 
did. Racemi terminales, numerosi, subcorymbosi, 5-6-flori. Pedicelli ad basin et medium bracteolati, floribus 3-plo longiores. 
Flores albi, cernui. Calyx brevis, 5-partitus, campanulatus ; laciniis ovatis, denticulatis. Corolla uncialis, pentagona, limbo 
5-lobo suberecto, tubo triplé breviore, super basin ad insertionem staminum constricta. Corona staminea brevissima, carnosa, 
pentagona, urceolata, pentaphylla ; foliolis connatis, laciniis corolle oppositis, trilobis, lobis lateralibus minimis, medio cuneato, 
ad margines papilluloso, dorso clypeato. Stamina 5, foliolis corone alterne ejusque basi inserta. Fi/amenta compressa, subu- 
lata. Anthere extrorse, innate, apiculate, 2-loculares, loculis basi paulo distantibus, corona breviores, in conum conniventes. 
Ovarium parvum, ovatum, 2-loculare, polyspermum, ovulis placente centrali affixis. Stylus cum ovario continuus. Stgma 
capitatum, 2-lobum. Bacca pomi minoris magnitudine, cortice luteo, rugoso, maculato, fragili. Catera uti supra. 
AS Le OIE 
/ 
This plant has been improperly considered the Theophrasta americana of Linneus, not only by botanists in this 
country, but even by M. de Jussieu himself; as we have ascertained by specimens most liberally communicated to 
us by our friend M. Desfontaines. That plant, however, which probably has never been seen by any one since 
Plumier, from whose account of it the characters of Linneus were taken, will be found on examination to be not only 
- specifically, but even generically, distinct from the plant before us. | | 
Plumier describes his Eresia as a tree with the simple stem ofa palm, bearing its leaves at the summit ; and from 
his figure it appears that the flowers are disposed in long spikes growing from the centre of the leaves ; they seem to 
be small, with a limb of the same length as the tube of the corolla. Our plant, on the contrary, has a stem one or 
two feet high, flowers growing in short corymbose upright racemes from the centre of the leaves, and a corolla with 
the tube very much shorter than the limb. In only one of these particulars does Eresia agree with our plant, and that 
is of little comparative importance ; namely, in the place from whence the flowers proceed. 
But if the apparent characters of Eresia be compared with certain species of the genus Clavija of the Flora Peru- 
viana, the resemblance will be found so great, that there can be no doubt of their generic identity ; notwithstanding 
certain differences in Plumier’s figures of the flowers of his plant: on which, we conceive, no confidence can reason- 
ably be placed. | x 5 oe 
Of Clavija we have been permitted by Mr. Lambert to examine the flowers of several species. Their structure 1s 
so extremely different from that of the plant which M. Jussieu described, that we imagine no one can now contemplate 
the possibility of their all belonging to the same genus : which that profound botanist formerly conjectured might be 
the case. ; 
We have subjoined the characters of Clavija, of which Mr. Lambert possesses many fine species. Jacquin’s Theo- 
