great beauty in the open border in October and November; 

 but in such situations it does not ripen seed : for that 

 purpose, the plants must be kept in the greenhouse, and 

 treated as Balsams and similar annuals : so managed, they 

 will flower from July to November. 



Is this distinct from Trachymene ? Here is a question 

 by no means easy to answer. If we were to judge only 

 from the figure and description of Trachymene in the 

 Transactions of the Linnean Society, we should reply in the 

 affirmative ; for it is to be understood from what we find in 

 that work, that the petals are acuminate, the sestivation not 

 imbricated, or but slightly so, and the fruit a double, tumid, 

 muricated body, without ridges ; besides which, the descrip- 

 tion does not advert to any one of the most singular charac- 

 teristics of the present plant. But upon examining a wild 

 specimen of Trachymene incisa, and consulting M. La Gasca, 

 by whom the original specimen in Mr. Rudge's Herbarium 

 has been analysed, we have come to the conclusion that 

 the apparent distinctions between Trachymene and the 

 present plant are either unimportant or non-existent; in 

 fact, upon comparing this species with M. La Gasca's 

 manuscript character of Trachymene, we do not find a 

 single material point of difference. We are, therefore, re- 

 luctantly compelled to abandon an opinion we at first, from 

 want of sufficient materials for examination, were led to 

 entertain, that this and Trachymene were distinct ; an 

 opinion which we the more regret that we formed, because 

 we fear that the knowledge of it has tended to induce our 

 learned friend M. DecandoUe to come to a similar con- 

 clusion in the unpublished 4th volume of his Prodromus. 



M. La Gasca allows us to take this opportunity of 

 stating, that the Azorella ovata, lanceolata, and compressa 

 of La Billardiere, and A. linearis of Cavanilles, which are 

 referred to Trachymene by Sprengel, do not properly form 

 a part of that, but belong to his Fischeria, — a very distinct 

 genus. 



We suspect that the fruit of this plant examined and 

 described by Dr. Hooker in the Botanical Magazine, was 

 in a very imperfect state, as we can find no trace of the 

 vittae mentioned by our much-valued and very accurate 

 friend : we are confirmed in this opinion, because we also 

 find the seed represented as loose in the pericarpium, — a 

 character which is certainly not to be seen in perfect 

 fruit. J. L. 



