AMARYLLIDACEiE. 
291 
This little plant, found by Dr. Burchell near Langkloof, 
without leaves in March, approaches to filifolia, but differs 
in a little undulation of the flowers, lined, as it appears, on 
the back with green, anthers white, a more simple stigma, and 
a style (as it seems in the dry specimen), broad at the very 
base. It may possibly be only a local variety of filifolia. 
Var. 2. Virescens. Specim. Burch. Herb. 2683. Major, 
floribus 15, albis, virescentibus ; stigmate vix trif. 
lobis obsoletis, absque foliis. Dr. Burchell had con- 
sidered this, when he gathered it, to be a distinct 
species ; I could discover nothing in the dry speci- 
mens to distinguish it, except superior size and a 
greener hue : but when in flower in Dr. Burchell 's 
garden, it was shewn to Mr. Ker, who, as I learn 
from Dr. Burchell, said it was Gemmata. If he 
meant that it was the very plant figured in the B. 
Mag., the flower of gemmata must be grossly ex- 
aggerated in the plate, being twice as large as in 
the specimen of virescens. 
4. Gemmata. — Strumaria. Bot. Mag. 39. 1620. Leaves 
wide, ciliated, subacute ; peduncles 3 inches ; 
perianth 9-16ths, very much undulated, white, 
without pale red, with a green mid-rib ; style 
greatly enlarged at the base, so as to occupy the 
disk ; filaments less enlarged than in the other spe- 
cies, adhering to the base of the style (Mr. Ker 
says, inserted in it; there seems to be no real dif- 
ference of structure, but that the style intrudes on 
the base of the filaments) ; anthers white ; stigma 
at first simple, afterwards trifid. 
Only known by the figure and description in the Bot. 
Mag. I am persuaded that Dr. Burchell’s virescens is not 
the same plant. Its flowers are not near so large, nor undu- 
lated ; and, according to Mr. Burchell’s notes, they have no 
rose-colour. Mr. Ker mentions a limpid drop between the 
filaments and stvle. The name Imhofia liavino- been set at 
liberty by the union of marginata with Nerine, I have been 
glad to fulfil the object of its framer, by applying it to a 
nearly allied genus. It was originally intended for Nerine 
venusta, but was not defined by any character, nor ever 
adopted : and its substitution for Nerine, which has been pretty 
generally adopted, would have occasioned useless confusion, 
u 2 
