510 ouura, and Cr. cultrrtum vere three distinct snecies, end also to feel 

 conf-ident, tbat the synonymy es here ffiven is (et least, for the 

 forester part) correct, "^itb reference to ^^. adscendens, Ij^av/. , '^yn. 

 Fl. SuGC, p. 220 {IRI2), and Rev. ^1. Succ, p. 96, hovever, there 

 is some difficulty in understanding what plant Kp\\Torth means, ^'^is 

 discrir)tion of it as follows! — "Leaves ascending, broadly tongue- 

 shared, very bhtuse, srreen. ^loY/ers pedunculate, ' and in another 

 descrirition "peduncles longer (than in I-'I. latiim)." -^nd he adds, 

 "The leaves are more ascending and r)aler than in the last (i.e., 

 l\ latiam) , and the reduncles lon.'^er. If the next snecies but three 

 (i.e., --. longum) is not the ''-'. folio linguiforme longiore of 

 Dillenius, this may be it; but, if so, he has delineated the leaves 

 too lonsr." This description seems more to accord v^fith G. longum 

 than v/ith '>. latum", and in ?fev. '^1 . ^ucc, p. 96, he remarks, 

 "Probably in variety of the forme- " (i.e., -^i. lucidum, H^w. ^ v\?hich 

 is ^. longum). There is, hov/ever, a drav.-ing at_ ^^ev;, undated, but 

 nrobably made somewhe^re about "1820, labelled "^''^eserib. adscendens, 

 Haw.," which represents a plant of G. latum, with leaves spreading 

 near th» ground, and is very like that which Salm ^yck has figured 

 as *'. adscendens, except that the pedicels and calvx are not repre- 

 sented as beinff tuberculate, from which charade ter ^ have no doubt 

 that ^a^ln %ck*s figure 8, f. 4 represents I'^. latum var^ B Hgy,,^ 

 !'isc. I'?t., n. 33 - ^'"■. latum var. breve, ^av;. ^ Hev. ^1. 3ucc., p. 

 99. But these tubercles I believe to be due to the attack of some 

 mite; they are not normal plant-tubercles and occur but rarely in 

 my experience. I do not remember to have seen them on a Glottiphy- 

 ITum, but I have on other genera, where also they are rot normal 

 structures. 



If this drav/ing at J^ew and S^lm -^yck's figure are correctly 

 named, then T v;ould suggest that ^aworth described '^'. adscendens 

 from a plant of G. latum that had been gro^m. under glass and not 

 ful''y exposed to the sun. T^j^s view is rendered probable by plants 

 of <j. latum that - possess, viiiich, as I '"■jvite (January, 192?), 

 have ascending leaves, yet v;hen received early in 1926 the leaves 

 yet more or less pressed dovn edge^'^ays near t the ground, not as- 

 cending; the alteration to an ascending position being due to the 

 . very unfavourable condition of an absence of direct sunlight during 

 the three ^"inter months. 



Several plants of this snecies were sent to me by Dr. J, Muir, 

 some of the smaller and harder type and some of the softer end more 

 Juicy :^orm, of which remarks have alreedv been made under the genus. 

 l^ncler the unnatural conditions in v;hich 1 have to cultivat them, 

 these plants have much altered in appearance, and if placed in the 

 hands o"^ most cultivators of succulents, without knowledge of their 

 origin, would probably be thought to belong to two or three species, 

 or at le^st varieties. One of the, v/hich, when received, had nearly 

 straight leaves spreading right and left nearl;,^ in a line (as in 

 T'ig, 246, a), after a time developed leaves curved dor/nward v;ith 

 slifhtly upcurved leases tips, exactly as represented by Salm %"ck 

 ■for I'^. cultratujn. In January, 1927, this put forth a pair of appar- 

 ently'- straight leaves, but whether these will remain straight or 

 eventupllv become curved like the others is at present unknov.n. 

 This specimen is illustrated by ^ig. 246, ^. and Q, , and clearly dem- 

 onstrates that G. cultratum is not a distinct species, but merely 

 a vprip>tion of G. latum, just as I nov/ find that G. obliouum is 

 merely a smaller form of this species, they are merely individual 

 forms of one snecies, for there is no difference in their flov;ers. 

 It is strange that Sgim ^yck figures this variety cultratum under 



