211 105, and 1926, VCilX, 26S; Jour. Bot., 1988, 265. -Huschia duslis, 

 I. 3ol. in Notes II, 104. 



Van Hhynsdorp division! ^idses near Bakhuis , ^earson and 

 Pillans 5,483. 



This interesting plant was sent to ^^^ew in 1911 by I'rofessor 

 Pearson and portions of it v;ere given to myself and to Dp. iiodier 

 Heath, and now, after eighteen yesrs, it has flov^rered for the first 

 time under cultivation in this country with Dp. Rodier Heath, who 

 has very kindly loaned to me his plant to describe and gigure. But 

 ^ig, ^8 represents only one grov.'th of the plant. It so much esembles 

 Argyroderma neconinum, N, E. Br. that (its flowers being then un- 

 known) I placed it under thst genus. B^t nov; that it has flowered 

 its structure nroves to be so entirely different from that of 

 Argyroderma that it must be placed in a separate genus. It differs 

 from Argyroderma by its cal:'rx being lobed dovm to its union with 

 the ovary and by having 5 lerge stigmas and 5 cells in the ovary, 

 instead of one sessile, circular stigma and many cells in the ovary. 



This is another instance of the curi-"'us vein of mimetic resem- 

 blance that pervades the v/hole of the floverinr: plants. "This plant 

 is so like Argyroderma in appearance, that v/ithout examining its 

 flowers no one would hesitate to place it in thrt genus. There are 

 also several other members of this family v/hose vegetative characters 

 are quite the same as those of ot^er genera, and we Jiave in the 

 genus Veronica some New Zealand species thpt resemble a Lycopo- 

 dlum, in Viola a Chilian species that resembles a ^empervivum and 

 niimerous other instances which it would appear that there is 

 latent in plants some element that controls the form the vegetative 

 organs shall assume or which may indicate some near or very remote 

 relationship to other and v-idely different plants, ^^nd that v/hen 

 this dormant element asserts itself it causes the plent to ^ ssujje 

 the apnearance of the ancestor from which it was derived. I can 

 think of no other way to account for the very numerous cases of 

 mimetic resemblance that occur among flov/ering nlant, if it be not 

 the possession of some latent element that now and then breaks 

 out, assumes control and reverts to an ancestral type. The cause 

 of such en outbreak may, of course, be induced by external factors. 



LAI.!PRANTHUS, N. E. Br. 



As it will take some v/eeks to v/ork out and describe it in de- 

 tail all the species of this beautiful genus, vAiich I recently se — 

 para ted frbm Ifesembryanthemura, I here give a list of the species 

 that appear to belong to it. Some of the, however, I have not seen, 

 and as the descriptions are incomplete, the3'- may not really belong 

 here, although from the descr:ption I judge this to be their right 



fenus. Some also may possibly prove to be synonyms of others, 

 n the synon3rmy the letter M, stand fro I'^sembryanthemiim. 



L. acutifolius, N. E, Br. (LI. acutifolivim, L. Bol.). 



L. aduncus, K", E. 3r. (M, aduncum. Haw,). 



L. altistylus, N. E. Br. (M. longistylum, L. BqI., not of 



De Cpndolle). 



L. amoenus, N. E. Br. (M. amoenum, Salm %ck) . 



L. aureus, N. E. Br. (M. aureum, Linn.). 



I. bicolor, N. E. ^3r. (M. bicolor, Linn.). 



L, brachyendrus, I-. E. Br, (K, brachyandrum, L. BqI , ) ♦ 



L. Brov/nii, N. E. Br. (M. Brov/nii, Hook.f.). 



L. caespitosus, N. e. Br. ( M. caespitosum, L. BqI.). 



