ON A NEW CHINESE ACANTHACEA. 93: 
culatis strigillosis, floribus axillaribus solitariis 2-nisve, bracteis foliis 
similibus sed multo minoribus calycem equantibus vel duplo super- 
antibus nuuc deficientibus, calycis 4—5-linealis lobis lineari-subulatis 
æqualibus, corolla infundibulari pallide ceerulea venulosa e tubo recto 
gracili 13-pollicari intus extusque puberulo in limbum campanulatum 
pollicarem subregularem fere glaberrimum æqualiter ampliata lobis trun- 
catis vel emarginatis symptyxi contortis, staminibus 4 apice tubi in- 
sertis ad basin loborum attingentibus equalibus vel subzequalibus, an- 
theris muticis 2-locularibus loculis parallelis apice basique sinu acuto 
discretis, stylo stamina vix superante stigmate æqualiter 2-lobo, capsula 
angusta compressa basi apiceque attenuata valvis medio secus septum 
extus sulcatis ab ima basi usque ad medium et ultra circ. 16-sperma, 
dissepimento completo, seminibus oblongis compressissimis. 
In umbrosis silve supra monasterium Fi-loi-tsz, ad angiportum 
Tsing-yune, fl. North River, provincie Cantoniensis, d. 18 Sept. 
1866, collegerunt Sampson et Hance (Exsicc. n. 1376F). 
This very lovely and apparently quite distinct plant would properly 
fall into Ruellia of Nees, as contradistinguished from Dipteracanthus, 
at least so far as the written differential character goes, the capsule 
bearing seeds to the very base. Dr. Anderson, however, in his * Enu- 
meration of African Acanthacee’ (Journ. Linn. Soc. vii. 14), expressly 
limits his subtribe Euruelliee by the “ capsula basi sterilis, supra me- 
dium seminifera.” But, as I do not know where Dr. Anderson would 
place the Chinese plant; and, as it seems to me naturally closely allied 
to R. strepens, Linn., and R. ciliosa, Pursh, I have retained it in the 
genus drawn up, to show the grounds of my belief, a rather full 
diagnosis, in which the principal structural points employed for generic 
distinction in the Order are noted. 
P.S. Since the above was written, I have received the 39th and 40th 
parts of vol. ix. of the ‘ Linnean Journal,’ containing Dr. Anderson’s 
Conspectus of the Indian Acanthacee. I think my diagnosis will show 
that, after all, no genus characterized by that eminent botanist will 
admit the Chinese plant, except Ruellia. As Nees, I must presume, 
after examination of some species at least, assigned to his Ruellia a 
capsule bearing seeds from the base, while Anderson asserts his Hemi- 
graphides, to which he refers all Nees’ Ruellie, to have a sterile-based 
fruit; and as the former structure certainly obtains in the Chinese 
plant, I suppose Dr. Anderson may have rather over-estimated its 
