16 
53. AQTJIFOLIACEJE OR ILICACE^. 
merely glossy beneath, somewhat abruptly acute at the tip and 
slightly rounded or at least not at all attenuate at their base into 
the very short stout petioles which are only 2 or 3 lines long, 
dark purplish and channelled above. Inflorescence abortively 
cymose as in Catha Dryandri Lowe. FI. pinkish w., purplish in 
the bud, mostly larger than in I. Azevinho , in close compact 
axillary clusters towards the ends of the young branches on 
short woody knobs or spurs, each solitary on its own 1-fld. ped. 
which is about 3 lines long, smooth and round, with a pair of 
minute brown ovate bractlets at its base ; lobes of cal. very ob- 
tuse rounded obscurely and minutely ciliolulate. Pet. elliptic 
concave pure w. inside, purplish outside towards their tips. 
Anthers small ; fil. w. about half the length of pet. or a little 
more. Ov. very large prominent exactly the height of the fil., 
globose bright gr. smooth shining, crowned with the large flat- 
tened depresso-globose subumbilicated sessile light-yellowish 
gr. stigma. Berries shining bright light coral-red, crowned with 
the black scarlike remains of the stigma, slightly depressedly 
globose, 9 mill, in diam. But few arrive at maturity compara- 
tively with the quantity of fl. Their ped. are only 1^-3 lines 
long, equal cylindric. 
Looking simply at the inflorescence, I. Perado might seem 
to be a mere form of I. Azevinho , in which the greater develop- 
ment of the 1. had checked the full evolution of the 1-fld. ped. 
into cymes. But other differences remain not thus to be ac- 
counted for, and indicative on the whole of aboriginal di- 
stinction. 
Though the country people in Mad., from relying too exclu- 
sively on the a spinose and noLspinose ” or entire 1. occasionally 
apply the name u Perado ” to mere states of the “ Azevim,” 
yet are they generally fully cognizaut of their absolute distinct- 
ness, and indeed rarely make the mistake just mentioned. 
In the Canaries, especially at Agua Garcia in Tenerife, 1. 
platyphylla Webb is quite arborescent. But this is the only 
difference I can discover between it and the Mad. pi. 
In I. platyphylla BM. t. 4079 the inflorescence is evidently 
not truly cymose, though so described, i. e. not in distinctly 
stalked few-fld. regularly fork-branched cymes, but in aggre- 
gately clustered 1-3-fld. ped. crowded on axillary leafy spurs 
or branchlets, j ust as occurs in luxuriantly flowering states of 
Catha Dryandri Lowe as contrasted with C. cassinoides ilerit. 
Indeed in inflorescence these two last-named pi. present re- 
