SYNOPSIS OF THE BUCHNERE, 
following Linneus’s mistake in giving to 
the group part of the character of another 
genus, and Persoon, in a manner very un- 
usual to the author of the Enchiridion, 
contrived to add to the blunder a portion 
of Linnzus's previous descriptions, so as 
to make up a character contradictory to 
itself. Other writers have usually copied 
Linneus, Jussieu, Willdenow, or Persoon, 
until Don (Sw. Brit. Fl. Gard. 2nd Ser. 3. 
t. 239) confined the genus Erinus to the 
E. alpinus, and established a new one 
under the name of Nycterinia for the E. 
lychnidea, Linn., with a very detailed cha- 
racter which unfortunately disagrees in 
many material] points with two of the four 
species he refers to it. 
Manulea of Linnezus was originally es- 
tablished for the M. Cheiranthus, and has 
been so characterised by almost all subse- 
quent authors as to be applicable only to 
that species and one or two others with 
subulate lobes to the corolla, although they 
all of them refer to it many plants that have 
oblong, obovate, or even emarginate lobes. 
Bergius, however, under the name of Ne- 
mia had given a rather more general cha- 
racter, applicable at least to the two species 
he enumerates, an example in which to 
this day he does not appear to have been 
followed. 
Th at affinity between Buchnera, 
Manulea, and the Cape Erini, has been 
frequently observed, and Don proposed to 
consider them as a tribe, of which I pub- 
ished a character in the Botanical Register 
for July, 1835, at the same time that Don 
gave a nearly similar but more detailed and 
. Confined one in Jamieson's Journal for the 
. Same month. It appears, however, from a 
further examination of the few species we 
formerly possessed, and of the large num- 
t of new ones now before me, that we 
had neither of us given sufficient latitude 
_ to the variations in the form of the corolla, 
. Hor attached sufficient importance to the 
. - positive character derived from the unilo- 
 €ular anthers, and that we had both of us 
Included genera which ought to be remov- 
ed to other tribes. I am also still of opi- 
nion that the calyx, placentation, and seeds 
A TRIBE OF SCROPHULARIACE E, 357 
as described by Don, ought not to form 
part of the essential character of the 
tribe. 
The Buchneree, as I should now pro- 
pose to circumscribe them, are essentially 
distinguished from Hemimeridee by the 
want of any glandular concavities or spur 
at the base of the corolla, from Antirr- 
hinee by the valvular dehiscence of 
the capsule (when not fleshy) and the 
unilocular anthers, from Salpiglossidee 
and Digitalee by the ascendent stamina 
and constantly unilocular anthers, from 
Gratiolee and Gerardiee by the unilocular 
anthers alone, from Rhinanthee by the 
latter character and by the upper lip of 
the corolla (when bilabiate) not being con- 
cave, from Veronicee by the stamina al- 
most constantly didynamous, or if dian- 
drous, with the anthers approximate, and 
from Buddleiee by the same character, as 
also by the corolla, which is always penta- 
merous or irregular. 
The only tribe between which and the 
Buchneree it is difficult to draw a definite 
line is that of the Verbascee. Generally 
speaking, the rotate or short-tubed corolla 
of the latter tribe, removes it widely from 
the Buchneree, which have usually a re- 
whilst on the other hand, there is a gradual 
change in the form of the corolla which ren- 
Manulee which I have placed in my genus 
Chenostoma ; in habit it is as near to the 
one as to the other. As its stamina are 
slightly ascending, and not declinate, as 
they had at first appeared to me, I have 
preferred retaining it amongst Buchneree 
to removing it to Verbascee, as I had pro- 
posed in Lindley’s Natural System, 2nd 
edit. p. 292. 
The essential character of Buchneree 
may therefore be thus stated :— 
Corolle limbus 5-fidus vel inequaliter 
4-fidus, interdum bilabiatus, laciniis om- 
nibus planis. Stamina adscendentia, di- 
dynama, vel rarius 2 approximata. An- — 
there uniloculares. Capsula bivalvis, val- 
