Scrophularinece.} 



CHILI. 



39 



Ord. XLVI. HYDROPHYLLE^. Br. 



1. PHACELIA. Mickaux. 

 1. P. circinnata ; foliis pinnatis ternatis hispidis rugosis lineatis, spicis glomeratis se- 

 cundis hispid issimis. Spr. — Jacq. in Spr. Syst. Veget. v. 1. p. 584 t Cham, in Schlecht. v. 4. 

 p. 493. — Hydrophyllum magellanicum. Lam. — Heliotropium pinnatum. Void. 



Hab. Conception. — Specimens which we have received from Mr. Cruckshanks, Mr. Macrae, and Mr. 

 Bridges, gathered in the more northern parts of Chili, seem to be identical with the P. peruviana, Spr., 

 (Aldea pinnata, Ruiz and Pavon,) if, indeed, that species be really distinct from P. circinnata. 



Ord. XLVII. SCROPHULARINEiE. Br. 

 1. VERONICA. Linn. 



1, V. acinifolia. Linn. 



Hab. Conception. — It differs from the Europoean plant of that name, only in the capsule being- scarcely 

 so deeply notched at the apex. 



2. SCHIZANTHUS. Ruiz §■ Pav. 



1. S. pinnatus. Ruiz et Pav. Fl. Per. v. 1. p. 13. t. 17. Exot. Fl. t. 73. Bot. Mag. t. 2404. 



Hab. Valparaiso. — This we have received from Dr. Gillies and Mr. Cruckshanks ; and the former 

 gentleman has been so fortunate as to add three other species to this beautiful genus, by his researches in 

 South America. 



3. CALCEOLARIA. Linn. 



1. C. integrifolia; foliis ovato-lanceolatis lanceolatisve denticulatis rugosis opacis subtus 

 ferrugineis, caule calycibusque pubescentibus, paniculis terminalibus pedunculatis. Lindl. 



a,, latifolia ; foliis ovato-lanceolatis argute denticulatis. Lindl. — C. integrifolia. Bot. 

 Reg. t. 744. — C. rugosa. Bot. Mag. t. 2523. — C. salviaefolia. Schlecht. et Cham. — Chachoul. 

 Feuill. Chil. v. 3. t. 7. 



jS. angustifolia ; foliis utrinque attenuatis grosse denticulatis, paniculis longius pedun- 

 culatis. Lindl. in Bot. Reg. t. 1083. 



Hab. «. Conception. /3. Valparaiso. — We, too, consider the narrow-leaved plant as a state of C. 

 integrifolia, although cultivation for some years in our garden proves it to be a permanent variety. In 

 the Botanical Magazine, the same plant has since been called C. rugosa; but it is neither C. rugosa, 

 Ruiz and Pav. v. 1. t. 28G, nor of Hooker's Exotic Flora, t. 99. It has been also named C. salvicefolia 

 by Schlechtendal and Chamisso in the Linnrea, v. 2. p. .565, who have been apparently led into this 

 error by following- Cavanilles, (Ic. v. 5. p. 31,) and by not having seen the figure of C. rugosa in the 

 Flora Peruviana. In the herbarium, these species are very difficult of determination, the important 

 differences existing in the upper lip of their corolla. In Feuillue's plant, and, consequently, in Linnanis' C. 

 integrifolia, Sp. PI. ed. 13, (not 14, nor of Smith's Ic. in ed. 1. t. 3, which is C. ovata, Roem. et Sch.) the 

 upper lip, though not half so large as the lower, is similar to it in shape, and closes up its mouth. lu C. 

 rugosa, Fl. Per. and Hook. Ex. Fl. (the C. scabioscefolia of Nee in Cav. Ic. 1. c.) the upper lip is so 

 extremely minute as to be at first scarcely discernible, and it is of a totally different shape from the lower. 



2. C. corymbosa ; foliis radicalibus ovatis cordatisque petiolatis bicrenatis, caulinis cor- 



