recognized and published a century afterwards by Jacquin in his Fragmenta, have long remained the 
opprobrium botanicorum, till Dr. Meyer perceiving that they formed a different genus from Maranta proposed, 
in his Flora Essequibonensis, to erect them into a new one by the name of Calathea; omitting to refer them to 
the genus Phrynium of Willdenow, to which they doubtless belong. This proposition has been adopted by 
Professor Sprengel in his Syst. Veg. Gottingen, 1825, and other writers. Circumstances have however occurred, 
which have brought several of these plants under my particular observation, and I am decidedly of opinion 
that, for reasons which will be fully detailed in the course of the present work, they are all properly 
included in the genus Phrynium, from which it is indeed impossible to separate them without altogether 
abolishing that genus.* 
Thus it appears that the genera of Catimbium, Myrosma, Philydrum, Spherocarpus, Hornstedtia, Tsiana, 
feretiera, Peronia, Ceratanthera, and Calathea, proposed by different writers, are here either altogether 
omitted for want of sufficient information concerning them, or are included in other genera, whilst 
Hellenia, as now better defined and_ re-established by Mr. Brown, will separate a portion of the species 
from Alpinia, and form a. distinct genus. 
Scitamince, a term applied by Linneus, in his natural orders, to a tribe of plants distinguished by 
their agreeable, useful, or valuable qualities, is derived from the Latin Scitamentum, any thing of a pleasant 
or savoury taste. It is the eighth order in his Fragmenta, and consists of various productions useful in 
food, medicine, &c. or remarkable for their odoriferous properties. It is a very distinct and natural order 
of plants, and can scarcely be separated under any system of arrangement, whether natural or artificial. 
The roots are in general either annual or biennial, and penetrate deeply into the ground. They are 
either fibrous or bulbous, and frequently both; and in the bulbs their valuable properties for the 
most part reside. The stem rises erect, and in general supports the peduncle, but in many cases the 
inflorescence is radical, or rising immediately from the roots. The petioles are sheathing ; the leaves either 
promiscucus or bifarious ; but are invariably lanceolate, admitting under that denomination of a great diversity 
of form. The calyx is superior, tubular, generally with a trifid margin. Corolla monopetalous, with a 
double limb or border; exterior iimb in three sections—interior limb with a double lip; the upper one 
divided into two or three sections; the lower one large, entire or emarginate, usually called the nectary 
from its having been formerly supposed to perform that office, and being generally the most conspicuous and 
ornamental part of the plant. Anther either single or double—naked or with an appendage ; style single, 
either at liberty or supported by the double anther, long, slender, flexible, but very tenacious, generally 
accompanied at the base by two glandular pointed processes. Stigma, infundibuliform, ciliate; seed vessel three- 
valved, three-celled, seeds arilled. 
Tn a paper read before the Linnean Society in 1806, and printed in 1807, in their transactions, 
(vol. viii. p. 330) I divided the tribe of Scitaminean Plants into two sections, the Canne, and the Scitamineee 
* TI cannot but regret that the learned Editor of the Botanical Register has adopted the opinion of Dr. Meyer, and considered Calathea 
as a distinct genus from Phrynium ; in consequence of which he has in the 12th number of the Bot. Reg. p. 1200, given a list of 17 plants, 
which, as he says, “are probably referable to that genus;” several of which had previously been published by me (from dn actual examination 
of the specimens of the plants themselves, either living or preserved) in the present work, as species of Phrynium. This seems the more 
extraordinary as he had in Bot. Reg. No. 141, p. 1020, published November 1, 1826, undertaken in a future number “to explain the generic 
differences which exist between the South American Calatheas and the Asiatie Phryniums.” Yet in the 12th number of the new series above 
referred to, published 1s¢ November, 1829, he observes that “he had not yet been fortunate enough to procure sufficient materials to explain 
the generic differences between Calathea and Phrynium; and is therefore still obliged to defer a complete character of Culathea.” Some efforts 
afterwards made by the Editor, in the same article, to explain these differences, seem to me to have totally failed of success. 
2 
