GS IHb: JOlHXAl. <.F BOTAXr 



(p. 453) placed us a svnonym uiidei' J/, crlnijiorum — a name which 

 Sender cites as of " Houtt. Pfl. Syst. 2 J), t. 58," [1778] in which he 

 is followed bv Berger (p. 40). A reference to this plate sliows that 

 it bears no name, and in the text the plant stands as M. puc/ioniforme. 

 The name criniflorum dates from Linn. f. Suppl. 259 : whether 

 Houttuyn's description and curious plate are identical witli this I aui 

 unable to judge. Haworth (Revis. 162) fully describes the plant 

 from specimens sent him by Alton, and Dryander gives a detailed 

 description ; but it does not seem necessary to re])roduce this, as the 

 identity of the species is not doubtful : the drawing is probably 

 by Taylor. 



7. M. HiSPTDUM L. Sp. PI. 1S2; Ait. Hort. Kew. ii. 184. 



The di'awing is named by Solander " Mesembryanthemum hispidum 

 var. tloribus majoribus." The entry of the species in the MSS. (there 

 is no descri]:)tion ) is in his hand, with a note of a variety which is not 

 that figured. 



Of this species we have a specimen from Cliffords garden which 

 represents " M. caule hispido " of Hort. Cliff, on which M. hispidum 

 was based. The label attached to the sheet has Boerhaave's name, as 

 cited in Hort. Cliff., but was wrongly identified by the unknown 

 person who added Linnean binomials to the sheets. Dryander, how- 

 ever, correctly identifies it as JSL. hispidum, of which we have also a 

 specimen from Gronovius, doubtless given him b^' Linnseus. 



8. M. AUREUM L. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1060; Ait. Hort. Kew. ii. 



190. 



There is nothing in Solander MSS. relating to this, 



9. 10. M. GEOSSUM Ait. Hort. Kew. ii. 191. 



There is nothing in Solander MSS. relating to this, and, in the absence 

 of specimens, the only authentic material of importance is Taylor's 

 drawing, that of Ann Lee being only a fragment, the end of a branch. 

 The diagnosis in Hort. Kew. is very short — " M. foliis subcylindricis 

 confertis papulosis, caudice basi incrassatis, ramis diffusis glabris " : 

 Haworth — who in 1794 (Obs. 255) said he had seen it, but had no 

 proper specimen for description — in 1808 (Misc. 5Q) gives a new 

 diagnosis (not incompatible with that in Hort. Kew.) and adds a 

 description of the flowers — " Corolla mediocris ]>etalis multiserialibus 

 primo pallide-carneis, demum stramineo-carneis " — and a note on its 

 cultivation. Taylor's drawing shows a large plant with several 

 branches bearing pale yellow flowers about two-thirds of an inch 

 across, of which dissections are given. Sonder (Fl. Cap. ii. 449) 

 cites the species from Haworth (Syn. 252) and a figure from Salm- 

 Dyck (§ 54, f. 8) which hai-dly agrees with Taylor's drawing, to 

 wliich the attention of future monographers may be directed. 



11. M. BRAcniATUM Ait. Hort. Kew. ii. 191. 

 This is not included in Solander MSS. Sonder (Fl. Cap. ii. 448) 

 suggests its identitA' with M. decussatum Thunb., but the flowers of 

 that are described as white, whereas those in the drawing are yellow. 

 Berger makes no reference to it. 



