I 88 THE NEW FLORA AND SILVA 



tributed than the others and the various plants of it are 

 identical and obviously they belong to one clon. Plants 

 with the name H. aurantiaca obtained from the Royal 

 Botanic Gardens at Kew appear to be of this clon. It is the 

 opinion of the writer that this is the clon described by Baker 

 as H. aurantiaca, and it was so described and illustrated in 

 colour in Addisonia in 1929 (vol. 14, plate 461). 



The plant is about 3 feet tall. The foliage is medium- 

 coarse and evergreen in that it remains green and growing 

 until winter ensues. The scapes are coarse, ascending, 

 coarsely branched above, and there are nodes which bear 

 conspicuous leaf-like bracts. The flowers are almost sessile 

 or on short stout pedicels but the scape is distinctly branch- 

 ing. The open flower has a spread of about 5 inches. The 

 segments are stiffly recurving, of firm texture, and those on 

 the lower side of the flower are less recurving giving the 

 appearance of being less widely open than flowers of other 

 species excepting the H. Dumortierii. In the throat the 

 colour of the flower is orange, but outside of this area the 

 petals and sepals are delicately tinged with English red, and 

 hence this type is to be classed as a fulvous Day Lily. The 

 season of bloom is in July and the plant is fully hardy in the 

 region about New York City. 



The writer has made a careful comparison of this clon 

 with the specimen of Baker's type plant now preserved in 

 the herbarium at Kew. The colour of this specimen has 

 faded, but in the size of the flower, in the shape and size of 

 the petals and in the short thick pedicels of the flowers 

 there is complete agreement. 



The chief point of uncertainty in Baker's description of 

 H. aurantiaca lies in his statement that the plant is most 

 closely related to H. Dumortierii. This opinion was evi- 

 dently based on general resemblance and especially on the 

 fact that the flowers are "not opening widely". There are 

 some grounds for such a comparison. Baker did not con- 

 sider, and it is possible he did not recognize, the pale fulvous 





