106 
THE LODDIGES LILY. 
rolled back; the petals were quite yellow with no spot?, and the stamens were joined into a tube 
rather longer than the ovary. It Avould therefore seem clear that our plant cannot be L. monadelplmm. 
y 
It was, however, figured under that name by the late Mr. Ker, at t. 1405 of the Botanical 
Magazine, and Biebcrstein afterwards praised the representation as a good one. But Eomer and 
SchulteSj unable to reconcile with that author's account a plant in whicli the divisions of the flowers 
are revolnte like a Turk's cap, and spotted, while the filaments are wholly disunited, proposed to call 
the latter, now before us, L. Loddigesiamtm, because Mr. Loddiges had first raised it from Eussian 
seeds. In this Prof. Kunth acquiesced. 
Nevertheless the Russian Botanists Fischer, Meyer, and Ave Lallement have united L. Loddi- 
geuanum and L. monadelphum, describing their plant as 3^ — 5^ feet high, with from 1 — 27 flowers, 
and stamens united at the base, all which is at variance vrith our plant ; at the same time they 
created a L. Szovitziamim^ from Colchis^ very near L. monadelphum^ with free stamens, and flowers 
like wax in colour and texture. Thus far it corresponds with the plant now before us ; but the 
above authors add that the flowers are spotted inside with dark purple, the style twice as long as 
the ovary, and the leaves scabrous at the edge, in which respects this disagrees. Upon the whole, 
therefore, we leave the name L. Loddigesianum as we find it, till some one shall succeed in settling 
the intricate synonymy of this genus, when it is probable that a great reduction of so-called 
species will take place. 
In the meanM'hile we venture to ask what difference there is between L, Loddigesicmum and 
L. pijrenaicum ? beyond size and the spotting of the flowers, 
