ok Mr. J. Miers on the genus Phrodus. 
tus convexis, utrinque glanduloso-pubescentibus, imo callo 
tumido persistente suffultis, callibus agglomeratis et axillis 
demum nudis hine nodosis ; floribus breviter pedunculatis.— 
Chile, prov. Coquimbo, v. s. in herb. Hook. (Bridges, no. 1330), 
in herb. Lindl. (Bridges, no. 1331*). 
This appears to be a low bushy stunted shrub, with close, 
short, flexuose, knotty branchlets, frequently spimescent at the 
apex, or often reduced to a short spine: the older branches are 
generally quite bare of leaves, but the younger ones are closely 
invested with minute fleshy fasciculate semiterete leaves, scarcely 
more than 1 or 2 lines in length, and barely half a line in thick- 
ness ; these soon fall off, leaving the axils bare, the sterile appear- 
ance of which is increased by the knotty accretions formed by 
the persistent tumid bases of the fasciculate leaves ; the peduncle 
is 2 lines in length; the calyx, 3 lines long, is somewhat cam- 
panular, being 2 lines broad, cleft full one-third of its length into 
five erect equal teeth: the corolla seldom exceeds 6 or 8 lines in 
length, the portion within the calyx bemg cylindrical, but it 
swells above and becomes funnel-shaped, with an expanded 
border consisting of five obtusely triangular equal lobes; the 
stamens are inserted in the contracted portion of the tube, where 
they are very hairy, above they are quite smooth, slender, erect, 
and extend 2 lines beyond the mouth of the tube; the style is 
exserted to the same lengthy. 
2. Phrodus Bridgesti (n. sp.) ;—fruticosus, ramulis elongatis, 
teneris, subadscendentibus; foliis fasciculatis, spathulato-linea- 
ribus, subcarnosis, superne canaliculatis, subtus convexis, utrin- 
que viscoso-pubescentibus ; corolla calyce 3-plo longiore ; sta- 
minibus subinzequalibus, longe exsertis, stylo zquilongis—— 
Chile ad Coquimbo. v. s. in herb. Hook. et Lindl. (Bridges, 
no. 1382). 
* There is evidently a confusion here in the numbers, which is not un- 
frequent in many of Bridges’s Chile plants, in consequence of two or more 
specimens having been distributed on the same sheet without attached labels. 
Owing to this same cause, I have described his no. 1331 as the Dolia vermi- 
culata; it should have been no. 1330, these numbers having been respec- 
tively interchanged. Under no. 1332 two very different plants have been 
distributed ; in Dr. Lindley’s herbarium that number corresponds with his 
Alona baccata, and in Sir Wm. Hooker’s herbarium the same number refers 
to a very distinct plant, which I have correctly described under the name of 
Sorema acuminata, I may here also observe, that there exists another error 
connected with some of Bridges’s plants formerly described by me, inasfar 
as regards their locality : thus Sorema acuminata (Lond. Journ. Bot. iv. 370), 
Sorema linearis (id. 499), Alona ericifolia (id. 501), and Dolia clavata (id. 
508), are all from the neighbourhood of Coquimbo, and not from Concepcion, 
as I found inscribed in mistake on the specimens referred to. 
+ This plant with generic details will be figured in the ‘ Illustr. South 
Amer. Plants,’ plate 42 A. 
