332 PLANTS or CENTRAL AUSTRALIA 



tcati. Calyx : limbo supero qiiinqiiepartito ; laciniis lineari- 

 lanceatis, aequalibus, pubescentibiis. Corolla : tubo hinc 

 ad basin usque fisso ; limbo unilabiato, 5-partito ; laciniis 

 lanceolatis, aeqnalibus, marginibus angustis induplicatis, 

 extus uti tubus pubescentibus, intus glabris trinerviis, nervo 

 medio venoso. Stamina : filamenta distincta, anguste 

 linearia, glabra, axi incrassata; antherse liberse, lineares, 

 imberbes, basi affixae, loculis longitudinaliter dehiscentibus. 

 Ovarium biloculare ? loculis monospermis, ovulis erectis. 

 Stylus cylindraceus, glaber. Stigmatis indusium margine 

 84] ciliatum et extus pilis copiosis longis strictis acutis albis 

 tectum V. cinctum. 



19. Eremophila {CunningUamii) arborescens, foliis al- 

 ternis linearibus mucronulo recurvo, sepalis fructus ungui- 

 culatis eglandulosis, corolla extus glabra. 



Eremophila? arborescens, Cunningli. MSS. 1817. 



Eremodendron Cunninghami, De Cand. prodr. xi; p. 713. 

 Delessert ic. select, vol. v, p. 43, tab. 100 (ubi error in 

 num. ovulorum). 



Loc. '' In the sandy bushes of the low western interior, 

 not beyond lat. 29° S." D. Start. 



Obs. The genus Eremophila was founded on very un- 

 satisfactory materials, namely, on two species, E. oppositi- 

 folia and alternifolia, which I found growing in the same 

 sandy desert at the head of Spencer's Gulf in 1802, the 

 only combining character being the scariose calyx, which 

 I inferred must have been enlarged after flowering. This, 

 however, proves not to be the case in E. alternifolia, which' 

 Mrs. Grey has found in flower towards the head of St. 

 Vincent's Gulf; and from analogy with other species since 

 discovered, it probably takes place only in a slight degree 

 in E. oppositifoKa, whose expanded flowers have not yet 

 been seen. 



In 1817 Mr. Cunningham, in Oxley's first expedition, 

 discovered a third and very remarkable species in flower 

 and unripe fruit, which he referred, with a doubt, to Ere- 

 mophila, and which M. Alphonse De Candolle has recently 

 separated, but as it seems to me on very insufficient grounds 



I 



