ScrophularinecB.] 
CHILL 
S9 
Ord. XLVI. HYDROPHYLLE^. Br. 
1. PHACELIA. Michaux. 
1. P. circinnata ; foliis pinnatis ternatis hispiclis rugosis lineatis, spicis glomeratis se- 
cundis hispidissimis. Spr. — Jacq. in Spr. Sqst. Veget. v. 1. p. 584, Cham, in Schlecht. v. 4. 
p. 493. — Hydrophyllum magellanicum. Lam . — Heliotropium pinnatum. Vahl. 
Hab. Conception. — Specimens which we have received from Mr. Cruckshanks, Mr. Macrae, and Mr. 
Bridges, gathered in the more northern parts of Chili, seem to be identical with the P. peruviana, Spr., 
(^Aldea pinnata, Ruiz and Pavon,) if, indeed, that species be really distinct from P. circinnata. 
Ord. XLVII. SCROPHULARINEiE. Br. 
1. VERONICA. Linn. 
1. V. acinifolia. Linn. 
Hab. Conception. — It differs from the Europsean plant of that name, only in the capsule being scarcely 
so deeply notched at the apex. 
2. SCHIZANTHUS. Ruiz §• Pav. 
1. S. pinnatus. Buiz etPav. FI. Per. v. 1. p. 13. t. 17. Exot. FI. t. 73. Bot. Mag. t. 2404. 
Hab. Valparaiso. — This we have received from Dr. Gillies and Mr. Cruckshanks; and the former 
gentleman has been so fortunate as to add three other species to this beautiful genus, by his researches in 
South America. 
3. CALCEOLARIA. Linn. 
1. C. integrifolia ; foliis ovato-lanceolatis lanceolatisve denticulatis rugosis opacis subtus 
ferrugineis, caule calycibusque pubescentibus, paniculis terminalibus pedunculalis. Lindl. 
a,, latifolia; foliis ovato-lanceolatis argute denticulatis. Lindl. — C. integrifolia. Bot. 
Reg. t. 744. — C. rugosa. Bot. Mag. t. 2523. — C. salvi^folia. Schlecht. et Cham . — Chachoul. 
Feuill. Chil. v. 3. t. 7. 
fi. angustifolia ; foliis utrinque attenuatis grosse denticulatis, paniculis longius pedun- 
culatis. Lindl. in Bot. Reg. t. 1083. 
Hab. a .. Conception. /3. Valparaiso. — We, too, consider the narrow-leaved plant as a state of C. 
integrifolia, although cultivation for some years in our garden proves it to be a permanent variety. In 
the Botanical Magazine, the same plant has since been called C. rugosa ; but it is neither C. rugosa, 
Ruiz and Pav. v. 1. t. 286, nor of Hooker’s Exotic Flora, t. 99. It has been also named C. salvicefolia 
by Schlechtendal and Chamisso in the Linnsea, v. 2. p. 565, who have been apparently led into this 
error by following CavaniUes, (Ic. v. 5. p. 31,) and by not having seen the figure of C. rugosa in the 
Flora Peruviana. In the herbarium, these species are very difficult of determination, the important 
differences existing in the upper lip of their corolla. In Feuillee’s plant, and, consequently, in Linnaeus’ C. 
integrifolia, Sp. PI. ed. 13, (not 14, nor of Smith’s Ic. in ed. 1. t. 3, which is C. ovata, Roem. et Sch.) the 
upper lip, though not half so large as the lower, is similar to it in shape, and closes up its mouth. In C. 
rugosa, FI. Per. and Hook. Ex. FI. (the C. scabioscefolia of Ne'e in Cav. Ic. 1. c.) the upper lip is so 
extremely minute as to be at first scarcely discernible, and it is of a totally different shape from the lower. 
2. C. corymbosa ; foliis radicalibus ovatis cordatisque petiolatis bicrenatis, caulinis cor- 
