240 
AMARYLLIDACEjE. 
3. Ciliaris. — Brunsv. Ciliaris. Bot. Reg. 14. 1153. 
Amaryllis. Linn. Hsemanthus. Willtl. This plant 
lias, 1 believe, never flowered in England, except 
in the collection of J. H. Slater, Esq. of Newick 
Park, who appears to have been particularly suc- 
cessful in the treatment of this genus and Bruns- 
vigia. The bulbs of this species rot if not kept 
perfectly dry in summer, and bleed if exposed to 
much heat at that time. The only bulb of toxi- 
caria I have seen in flower was cultivated above 
ground, but so treated they are apt to contract 
damp from the atmosphere and rot. I believe they 
should all be grown in light loam, placing white 
sand in contact with the bulb. Capricious water- 
ing is the bane of all such bulbs. They form their 
leaves naturally in the cool and rainy season, and 
rest during the period of heat, flowering with 
the first rains that follow it. It is evident, there- 
fore, that the temperature may be advantageously 
increased after the leaves are full grown, but heat 
at their first pushing will make them grow weak 
and is unnatural to them ; they must all have a 
free supply of water while the leaf is growing, and 
it must not be allowed to wither prematurely. It 
has been found, as well as several Mesembryan- 
themums, growing in clay at the Cape, but it is 
doubtful whether the evaporation in this country is 
sufficiently rapid to enable it to thrive in a strong 
soil here. 
4. Guttata. — Linn. Syst. veg. ed. 13. p. 265. Leaf Herb. 
Banks, marked Haemanthus Guttatus, folio 10-unc. 
unciam lato, infra attenuato, margine spinis semi- 
uncialibus. PI. 22. fig. 1. I have given the repre- 
sentation of this leaf from a specimen named by Lin- 
naeus Amaryllis guttata. After his death, from 
his notes, it was changed to ciliaris. It may be 
that he had ascertained by other specimens that it 
was only a variety of ciliaris ; but, although ciliaris 
varies a little in the form and ciliation of its leaves, 
I cannot think this narrow attenuated leaf, with 
such long marginal spines, can belong to the same 
species. If it prove to be only a variety differing 
in leaf, it is yet so remarkable as to deserve a sub- 
