EftVUM. 
197 
opinion of Mr. Carruthers that, notwithstanding some discrepan- 
cies, it belongs rather to E. pubescens DC. as described by Gre- 
nier and Godron. The following notes upon the spec, have been 
kindly furnished by Mr. C. : — 
“Smooth except the cal. and young lfts. or rather all the 
younger portions of the spec, which are hairy. Tendrils branched. 
Lfts. 5-9 lines long X 1 -2 broad oblong bluntish rounded slightly 
mucronate in 5-8 pairs. Stip. all semi-hastate, but the upper 
portions of the branches are wanting in the spec. Fed. 2 ?-4-nd. 
awned 1-2 in. long in fl., shorter than the 1. FI. with cal. 2 lines 
long. Cal. and sep. thinly hairy (pilose). Sep. elongated-trian- 
gular, at length subulate, with the edges ciliate ; 2 upper about 
the length of tube, the 3 others much longer yet shorter than 
cor. Pods wanting in this spec., but in Bourgeau’s no. 599, which 
there can be no doubt is the same sp., the pods are linear-oblong, 
covered with short scattered hairs, 5-6-seeded, and the seeds 
roundish with a rounded-oval hilum 1 1 q of their circumference.” 
The absence of pods in Solander’s pi. — not to mention the 
general smoothness and awned ped. in both his and Bourgeau’s 
spec. — invalidates of course the certainty of the foregoing deter- 
mination, and consequently the claims of E. pubescens DC. to a 
place in the Mad. Flora. But, as Mr. Carruthers justly observes, 
“granting that Solander’s spec, is a satisfactory datum for in- 
cluding a pi.” otherwise unobserved “in the Mad. Flora, then, 
with the assistance of Bourgeau’s Canary pi. (no. 599), which 
are undoubtedly the same sp., there can be no doubt that E. pu- 
bescens must have a place there.” That the latter pi. has escaped 
the observation in Mad. of myself and other recent botanists is 
of little weight, considering its close resemblance to E. gracile 
and E. tetraspermum , and the fact of its having remained else- 
where so long confounded with those sp. It has proved to be 
however a Canarian sp. ; and now that its characters are better 
understood, its detection in Mad. will it may be hoped soon 
follow, and establish, after nearly a century’s obscurity and error, 
the correctness of Mr. Carruthers’s determination of Solander’s 
unique specimen. 
MM. Grenier and Godron 1. c. describe E. pubescens DC. as 
distinguished, “ 1st, from E. tetraspermum by its often more than 
2-lld. ped., longer as many as G-seeded pods, seeds with an oval- 
rounded hilum j'q their circumference, and by the broader lfts. ; 
2ndly, from E. gracile by the more slender awnless ped. scarcely 
longer than the l., by the generally smaller 11., the more unequal 
