Mac 
i 
CORRESPONDENCE. 93 
who published it in 1835 in the Transactions of the Turin Academy, under the 
name of Tecophilea proposed by Bertero, in compliment to Colla's daughter 
Tecophila, who made the drawing of it. Póppig, who also collected the plant at 
Concon, unaware of these circumstances, described it in 1838, in his * Nova 
Genera et Species,’ as Phyganthus vernus, adding a drawing and analysis of it, 
incorrect in all its most essential details. Dr. Leybold has now furnished ano- 
ther generic diagnosis, or rather an ordinal one, founded on the characters of 
the typical plant, but in this, as well as in his drawing of the same, which you 
rded to me, and in that in possession of the Linnean Society, there are 
several deficiencies, which at a future time I will point out. 
Dr. Leybold considers the plant as being nearly allied to Iridacee, agreeing 
with that family in its partially inferior ovary, its perigonium, and its rhizoma, 
but differing in the number, introrse direction, and mode of dehiscence of its 
anthers. Colla was equally wrong in considering it as belonging to the Nar- 
cissec, and Póppig was not less so in plaeing it in Hemodoracee. Endlicher, 
alik 
form mode of dehiscence as in hilea, which has not yet been properly 
described ; the style and stigma are also alike in both cases. In all these es- 
sential respects there is the closest resemblance between the two genera, ni 
only difference being that the ovary and capsule are quite superior, in whic 
respect Zephyra resembles Pasithaë, and approaches Conanthera and ar 
"There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the intimate affinity of Tecophilea with. 
shorter, basal spur-like prolongation, and present the same peeuliar operculi- 
in Tecop 
these genera. 
. Don first suggested the idea of placing Zephyra, Cumingia, sro imo 
Pasithaé, as a distinct group of the Liliacee, under the name of Conanthere 
