50 



CANDOLLEA tctrandra. 

 Tetrandrous Candollea. 



MONADELPHIA TETRANDRIA. 



Nat. ord. Dilleniace^. 



CANDOLLEA, Lahillard. Calyx pentapliyllus, foliolis ovalibus, mu- 

 cronatis, persistentibus. Corollas petala 5, hypogyna, obovata v. obcordata. 

 Stamina hypogyna, polyadelpha ; filamenta brevia, filiformia, basibus fasci- 

 culatim connata, apicibus tQstincta ; antherce biloculares, loculis oblongis, 

 adnatis. Ovaria 3-6, libera, unilocularia, ovulis 2, e basi erectis. Sfijli ter- 

 minales, subulati ; stigmata simplicia. CffpsM/<« coriacese, uniloculares, intus 

 longitudinaliter dehisceutes, mono-dispermae. Semina erecta, arillo membra- 



naceo, lacero. Sufirutices Novce-Hollandice Austro-occidentalis ; foliis 



alternis, ad apices ramulorum subconfertis, linearibus v. citneatiSf integerrimis 

 V. apice dentatis, saepius supra basim persistentem transversim secedentibus, 

 floribus ad apices ramorum solitariis v.fasciculatim racemosis. Eudl. Genera, 

 4755. 



C. tetrandra; ramis junioribus pilosis, foliis oblongis cuneatis dentatis basi 

 angustatis integerrimis, floribus solitariis inter folia sessilibus, petalis 

 obovatis planis emarginatis sepalis mucronatis glabris multo longioribus, 

 phalangibus tetrandris. Lindl. in Hot. Reg. 1842. misc. 39. 



The plant which is called Candollea cuneiformis in gardens 

 is a species with leaves and flowers not half the size of the 

 subject of the present plate, and stamens placed from six to 

 nine in a parcel ; otherwise it has much the same appearance. 

 This species is manifestly quite distinct. The former comes, 

 or is said to come, from King George's Sound ; this has been 

 raised from Swan River seeds. In country therefore they 

 are not very different. 



Relying upon the traditionary application of the name C. 

 cuneiformis, 1 separated the present plant under the name of 

 C. tetrandra^ in a notice published in this work in June, 1842. 

 But upon looking into prior authorities I begin to doubt whether 

 this or the small one has the best claim to the former name. 

 DeCandolle says nothing about the number of stamens in the 

 phalanges of C. cuneiformis ; but Sir W. Hooker, in his figure 

 in the Botanical Magazine, t. 2711, of what purports to be 



