414 CXXII. IRIDEJE, ges 
membranous, striate, acuminate, the subtending ones 4 to j in. long, 
the inner ones smaller. Pedicels filiform, 2to Lin. long, often glandular- 
Songer filiform, very shortl dilated at the base. Style of L. pani- 
lata. Capsule about 2 lines diameter, opening to the base in three 
‘anes which often retain pw see s long alter they open.—Sisyrinchium 
pulchellum, R. Br. Prod. . Muell. Fragm. vii. ; Renealmia 
pulchella, R. Br. Prod. Addend: a; Nematostigma peen Dietr. Spec. 
Pi. ii. 510; ; Libertia Laurencii, ' Hook. f. Fl. Tasm. ii. 34, t. 129; 
L. micrantha, A. Cunn. in Hoo k. f. Fl. N. Zeal. i. 259. 
x Wales. Grose river, 2. Brown; Blue Mountains, C. Moore ; Port Jack- 
oolls. 
toria. Upper Targil and Upper Latrobe rivers, Mount Baw-Baw, sources of the 
fox. &c., F. Mueller 
asmania. Abundant in various parts of the Sag, ascending to 4000 fi. J. D. 
Hooker, and others 
The species is alo i in New Zealand. fad common Tasmanian form described by 
Hooker as L. Laurencii, gon rather large flowers, the perianth-segments about 3 lines 
long; but some y entm specimens, piali. from dins river, Milligan, Brown s 
own, and some of the New Zealand ones have them remarkably small, the perianth- 
segments scarcely 2 lines long. The majority of the New South Wales and New 
Zealand ones are more or less intermediate in size. 
7. CAMPYNEMA, Labill. 
Perianth agni divided to the ovary into 6 ma equal segments 
— oo e base. Stamens 6, the filaments free; anthers 
openi nde but sagittate with short obtuse brin at the — 
Styles 3, gie from the base, rather thick, obtuse and stigmatic at 
the e nd, at first connivent, at length spre ading. Capsule chad or 
i y code more or less 
the 
developm ment, at first terminal but seg. opposed to a linear bract 
by the develop of its axillary shoo 
e genus is endemic in Tasmania, with exceptional characters, to whatever Order ` 
it may be ascribed. Brown, Judging from Labillardiére’s figure and description, place ed 
it amongst anomalous genera at the end of Melanthacee, from which it differs essen- 
tially in its Lo inferior o ent iid t dde a character to which less importance 
was then ait than has since been attributed to it. Lindley enumerated 3 Kei 
Amargllidea, ad which Kunth appears to have advisedly expunged it, as it appe? 
in his index, but not in the text of his fifth volume. F. Mueller refers it without es 
