likely, if it prove easy of increase, to be a valuable addition 
to our gardens. We cultivate it in peat-earth ; and it seems 
to prefer the stove to the green-house. 
At first sight, I beli¢ved this to be the P. lutea of Wat- 
TER, Fl. Carn. but every writer describes that plant, and Mr 
GawLeER has represented it in the Botanical Register, t. 126. 
with three of the five lobes having four distinct teeth. No 
such peculiarity is visible in our specimen. To this diffe- 
rence, I may add, that the leaves are much larger than in 
P. lutea, the scape is taller, and the flower paler, never having 
“ the tube and the spur marked with a trace of purplish veins.” 
The foliage is precisely similar to that of P. grandiflora 
(Flora Londinensis, New Series), and the structure of the sta- 
mens and the pistil is also the same ; but it differs strikingly 
in the form of the corolla, ‘here almost entirely regular, and its 
_ Singularly prominent palate. Most of the genus have blue 
flowers, those of this species and of P. Jutea alone being yel- 
low. 
Fig. I. Plant, natural size. Fig. 2. Back view of a flower, with the groove 
and the aperture leading to the palate. Fig. 2. Front view of a Co- 
rolla, cut open to shew the palate. Fig. 4. Stamens, and pistil; the 
, with one of its lobes, the Anthers. Fig. 5- 
large stigma covering 
Single stamen. Fig. 6. Pistil—More or less magnified. 
a — 
a 
