49 



parts .Wc are bound therefore to resuscitate the neglected name 

 of the learned Spaniard Don Simon de Roxas Clemente y Rubio, 

 whose fate it was to write too little, whilst what little he wrote is 

 nearly unknown on this side the Pyrenees. His manuscripts prepa- 

 red for the press are deposited in the Museum of Natural History of 

 Madrid. Amongst them is a Flora of'the Kingdom of Grenada, which 

 would probably have superseded, had it seen the light, much of the 

 detail of this little enumeration. 



Ulex genistoides. Brot. 



U. ramis glabris, (junioribus villosulis), cylindraceis , striatis; vexillo 

 et carina extus ad margines tomentosis ; ovario elongato, tomentoso, 

 pluri-ovulato ; legutninibus compressiusculis , angustis, villosis, ca- 

 lyce multo longioribus, 4-o-spermis. 



Hab. Prope Olisiponem in arenosis ad sinistram Tagi ripam, 

 et in pinetis non longe a fluvio. Abundat circa Olhas Ve~ 

 dras. et tot^t via ab oppidulo Moita ad Getobrigam. 



Ulex Boivini. 



U. ramis glabris, (junioribus villosissimis ) , sulcatis, subtetragonis ; 

 vexillo et carina extus dense villosis ; ovario ovato , brevi , glabro, 

 dorso crinito , 2-5-ovulato ; leguminibus ovatis , complanatis , falca- 

 tis, nervoso-marginatis, calyce subpersistente vix duplo longioribus, 

 2-spermis. 



U. genistoides Salzm. exsicc. Tingit. non. Brot. 

 Hab. Inmontosis circa Arundam, legi etiam in Monte Magno 

 seu Djibbel Kibir Tingitanorum. 



Obs. On gathering the U. genistoides Brot. in Portugal I imme- 

 diately perceived that it was not the same plant which I had found 

 in Spain and attributed to that species. My Lisbon tickets bear the fol- 

 lowing observation «]plantoe Hispanicse ( an Genistae species?) in Tur- 

 detania olim lectse Stauracanthi aphylli nomen ineaute in schedis in- 

 didi. ». The specimens of the same plant which I gathered on the 

 Djibbel Kibir in May 1827 were not in fruit , and I owe to M. Boi- 

 vin, who has paid great attention to the Flora of the Mediterranean, 

 and particularly to that of its African shores, the first information 

 of the difference between the plants of Brotero and Salzmann, and 

 my Spanish specimens 1 found identic with the latter. (1) I have 

 much pleasure therefore in attaching to this plant the name of its se- 

 cond discoverer, and the more so as he promises shortly to publish 

 a monographic review of the genera of this section of Leguminosse. 

 The figure and description of Dr. Lindley ( Bot. Reg. tab. 1452 ) be- 

 long to the true U. genistoides Brot. raised from Portuguese seeds, 

 but the account of the fruit taken, as Dr. Lindley himself says, from 

 Salzmann's dried specimens, refers to U. Boivini. I am clearly of 

 the opinion of that learned author that thegenus Stauracanthusshould 

 not be retained. It is certain that the flattened pods of U Boivini, 



(1) I have some specimens gathered near Algesiras which appear to 

 agree with the plant of Brotero, but they are in too imperfect a state to 

 decide upon with any certainty. 



7 



