172 But the rlsnt figured on , " . 



-'"•"^■- ■, hevi rei^roduced (-^i--. 3C), alth-U;-:. tl. .'ferent 



■' 3";"C:. x'ence ?nd colour, hss now devei O'-^^^r" ", •^-, ■.--r.-ri ,, ■^ 



in evevy resrect vitY that I figured r . , • '- 



f^onvYi I h^ve not yet seen flov/ers of eitlier -^ reel certain th 

 ^h T,-r ■'■-f^ir^^ -f-n one and the same Q-sr>*-'^=3. Ar-." c^ "• -,- as -^ '^ '": 



descrirtion,_ i-^ ' . Jura, : 



fore his -. perviririe and I-. luoeoviritle are sti]_l unknc 

 I f v,,-_-,.o-"ox>e nro'^ose to c-^-^'''^-'' '••' r^-r-evious descriptions o:. -.-...^^• 

 "es end repl*ice ' "pnsnations of those given by 



jrt/i . IVie descriptiQ- . • correct ts " 



(not of the flower) of G. perviride 

 laerelv represents t:'e cn.ltivpted appearance of G, gibbosun, both 

 f T r-i 1 r> o a bgin^T hpre re'^'^''^''''^^'^^ \-^''""'^. 80 y-^" "i ) i-i no . ," ciq^-> ]-•-*■ -ri qj-^^ 

 ^^- --• ■ --^es must, suf'f': ?s9nt 



se'^t ]:no"'n to me of ^'. ' ::isuiii. -'-t is very unfort- ihe 



loc"^"^ ities of ^'^' "^-■ii'" "•^■^ ■ o --■>-.•" -,■ v,-- rifvor"''' 



unlTnovn, for h - " ' re for. 



it "•o.'ld hpve en= ' '.a more ce:- ' to identify soi.ie of 



f-,o ^n^rri-- >o r-a- . t Ere ct pr ■'■n'''"own. 



.-" ' ' " ' 'escriptions o ~ nts t.re vegue, 



yet from his sectiomJ. chare cter^ , as a group there can 



■ho v^o '•'1 ^-i-- ■'-o '. o ^^ j-^iQ ^---^y^p. ^^ ■ ]_. , ;^ ^^ describes, for to the 



~-"^-- or -■-:>■ ^r "; loT'ing chars'CtersJ — "Leaves 



o'^Tosite, pn ino^'; lon*^, very stout, united almost he middle, 



o"'^> abbreviated, Gibbous, ■'•'^•^ -^-^--ar much enlarged . . ohe ape:- and 

 "■■'ique. Cal^rx usually'- C- . ^orollc sma.ll, rubicund, flov;erin 

 in v/inter and spring." 



I'ig. 82. — floral structure of G-ibbaeum. 



A, Rnd 3. Section through flov;er, and. transverse 

 section of ovar^^ of Gibbaeum pubescens. C, stigmas of 

 G. I'Aiiri . D. stigmss of G-. raolle. 



-ill e n 1 - '" ' ■ -- ■'' "^ ■".'' o d i a ine t e r s . 



x'ig. 82 is a diagram represe the floral structure of 

 this geniis, from vrhich it viil be noted that the stigmas of the 

 various species noted very very considerably in size and charec- 

 ter, affording exce?lent specific distinction. All the figures 

 are dra^vn to the stme scele of being enlarged tv/o diameters, so 

 t^^-t it v;ilT be seen that the difference in the size of the stig- 

 : ■: z is ver:" ■nronounced. N. 15. Bpovni 



(To beo continued. ) 



LISSK 3RYiJ:TKEI.i;i,: . 

 Oard^ Ghron. HI. 79: 194. isgG. 

 ( Oontinu'^'^ . -^v^m p?ge 17S.) 



3.— I-:.- ^*.., ... 3. Er. 

 (Correction) . 

 194 The name Lithors ^uschiana , 1^. ^. -r. , on p. 116 should be cor- 

 rected to Lit'-'ops Huschiornu ^^. -^. -^r., and the name ^^^eserabryan- 

 themum ^mschipnum, ^inter, erased from the synonymy. A"'ir. ^-^ss 

 '-s pointed out to me that I have made a mistake in supposing 



