AMARY LLIDACEiE. 
141 
collector found them growing in black vegetable 
earth, with a scape above three feet high. I can- 
not distinguish the var. longipedunculata, 1 188, 
from acuminata, 534, Bot. Reg. In the latter the 
shortness of the peduncles is an error of the artist. 
I think there must be a mistake in the account that 
longipedunculata was found in a wild state near 
San Pablo Quatro-Venados in the State of Mexican 
Oaxaca. It seems very improbable that this 
variable genus should manifest itself exactly in the 
same form in two spots 40 degrees asunder, in the 
North and South hemispheres. It is, however, 
possible. I believe the bulbs of pulverulentum 
from Buenos Ayres to be garden productions. 
Var. 10. Ignescens. — Scape and leaves more robust 
than fulgidpm, dark green, flowers smaller, more 
undulated and crowded, fiery orange, approaching 
more to Crocatum in form. 
Var. 1 1. Crocatum. — Amaryllis. Bot. Reg. 1. 38. Scape 
and leaves robust, flowers smaller and more undu- 
lated than fulgidum, upper sepal less reflex. The 
flowers of this plant are very subject to the distemper 
called the curl. 
II. Spathaceum, hybridum, Bot. Mag. 49. 2315. is 
Rutilo-Johnsoni, a cross-bred seedling of the same race as 
that figured under the name Splendens, Herb. App. — Am. 
Braziliensis, Red. Lil. 8. 469. is the English mule Johnsoni 
or Regio-vittatum. All other named varieties belonging to 
this genus are cross-bred intermixtures, which are almost 
interminable ; for all the species appear to breed freely 
together ; and their produce is fertile and easily crossed 
again. The system of giving a Latin specific name to every 
cross-bred seedling, which prevails amongst cultivators, and 
has been unfortunately sanctioned to a certain degree by M. 
De Candolle, and completely adopted by Sweet in his Hort. 
Brit.., where he has overwhelmed the natural species of this 
genus by the association of one or two hundred cross-bred 
seedlings, bearing names of the like description with those 
of the original species, is very objectionable; and it is high 
time that the writers of all botanical works should set their 
faces decidedly against it. I will enumerate the principal 
crosses which have been effected in this genus, retaining 
