208 
am-aryllidace;e. 
of the tube, and the nectary is 12-dentate in Hove's fig. 
Feb. 90.” — Hove’s drawing, No. 64, is marked “ Gool 
Sobool, sandy plains, Cambay.” Bad as Hove’s drawing is, 
the tube therein is 2f of an inch long, and that of the spe- 
cimen of Zeylanicum in the Banks, herb, only 1|. Hove’s 
drawings are so bad, that he had probably never handled 
a pencil before ; and in this drawing, where the leaves 
are a great deal too broad and pointed, he has even 
omitted the style. It is strange that Dryander should have 
formed an opinion on such a performance, when he had 
several good specimens before him. The plant has no re- 
semblance to Forskael’s P. maximum, to which he inju- 
diciously refers it, as well as to longiflorum ; and the varia- 
tion of the tube of Zeylanicum from 1|- to 1| in length, to 
which he alludes, is of no importance. In Zeylanicum the 
limb is usually from two to three times the length of the 
tube, in all the specimens of Cambayense it is shorter than 
the tube, but the leaves of the two plants are quite different, 
the margins in this being parallel, differing in that respect 
from all the other Asiatic species. 
9. Longiflorum. — Specimina Herb. Banks. Leaves acute, 
lanceolate, half an inch wide, scape very short (about an 
inch and a quarter), one-flowered, germen sessile, tube 
inches long (six according to Roxburgh), limb about three, 
style nearly equalling the limb. Native of Molucca. It has 
long been lost at Calcutta ; the bulbs have never, I believe, 
been brought to Europe. It is very different from Cam- 
bayense. 
10. Maximum. — This plant was described by Forskael, 
who saw only one specimen, which had been gathered by 
his companion, Dr. Niebuhr, near Taaes, in Arabia, a town 
about fourteen German miles west by north of Mockha. 
Forskael did not see its leaves. It was a solitary flower, 
and he describes severally both the tube and the cup to 
be a foot long, the limb to be longer than the stamens and 
patent ; but, he adds, not reflex as in Zeylanicum. It is 
however evident that he must have considered the cup to be 
a part and prolongation of the tube, and only meant that, 
taken together, the tube and cup measured a foot in length; 
for if the cup alone had been a foot long, the stamens, being 
longer than the cup, and the limb, as he states, exceeding 
them, the expansion of the flower would have measured at 
least a yard in width, which is quite incredible. He speaks 
