UrticecR?^ 
CHILI. 
45 
2. CROTON. Linn. 
1. C. lanceolatus; herbaceus, foliis oblongo-lanceolatis remote clentatis glabris eglandu- 
losis, junioribus ciliatis, racemis axillaribus, floribus masculis 5-andris, petalis 3-cuspida- 
tis, fructibus tomentosis. Sp7\ — Cav. Ic. v. 6. L 557. J\ 2. — C. tricuspidatum. Lam. 
Hab. Conception. 
Ord. lx. EMPETRE^. Nutt. 
1. EMPETRUM. Linn. 
1. E. rubrum; procumbens, ramulis pubescentlbus, foliis oblongis margine revolutis 
supra scabriusculis. Spr. — Vahl. 
Hab. Conception. — Mr. Don has separated from this g-enus the E. album, under the name of Corema, in 
the Edin. New Phil. Journ. v. 2. p. 63, and, in the same paper, has pointed out, at length, the affinities of the 
order with the EuphorbiacecB. 
Ord. LXI. URTICE^. Juss. 
1. GUNNERA. Linn. 
1. G.scobra; foliis lobatis, petiolis granulosis, tliyrsis magnis. Ruiz et Pav. FI. Per. 
V. \. p. 29. t. 44. f. a. — Panke, &c. Feuill. Chil. v. 2. p. 30. 
Hab. Conception. — We have determined the plant from Mr. Collie’s notes, for it has not been sent us 
in the Collection. — Allied to this Order, but forming part of the Monimem, is the Boldu of Chili, which, 
though no specimens were obtained by the Expedition, we ought not to pass over. One of the first plants, 
Feuille'e says, that he collected on landing, was the “ BolduP but neither in flower nor fruit, and the fio-ure 
he gives was from another individual, gathered afterwards in the mountains. This has six stamens, and is the 
Boldus chilensis of Molina, (Saggio Sulla Storia, Nat. del Chil. ed. 2. p. 153,) and of Roemer and Schultes, 
Syst. V. 7. p. 57 ; but from what we have received from Mr. Cruckshanks, this is certainly not the true 
Boldu, a name confined to one plant, and not, as Molina says, given to several. The plant of Feuille'e is still 
involved in considerable doubt, inasmuch as it is very uncertain if Molina ever saw it, he having in 
many cases contented himself with giving fanciful names to Feuillee’s indifferent descriptions. It is cer- 
tainly, however, the Peumus Boldus of Molina’s History of Chili ; and if actually an existing plant, may 
be arranged with his other kinds of Peumo, or Chilian species of Lauras ; but the extreme resemblance of 
the leaf to that of the real Boldu, leads us to suspect that the plant of Feuille'e, having opposite leaves, may 
be compounded of the stem and leaves of the true Boldu, while the flowers may belong to something very 
different. One species of the Peumo is now before us, from Mr. Macrae, agreeing tolerably with the Peu- 
mus rubra of Molina, and constituting probably the Lauras Peumus of Lamarck: the leaves are oblono- 
obtuse, alternate on a very short petiole, one-nerved, the margin cartiLaginous, or as if formed of a nerve, 
very entire, but undulate, at least in the dry state : the flowers (only in bud) are in a terminal raceme. The 
Boldu was first described in the Flora Peruviana, (Genera, p. 135. t. 29,) by the name of Ruizia Boldu, but 
there being already the Ruizia of Cavauilles, it was necessary to adopt some other appellation. Richard, in 
Persoon’s Synopsis, supposing it, as many others have done, to be the Peumus Boldus of Molina, took up that 
name, but with the character given by Ruiz and Pavon ; and, soon afterwards, Jussieu gave it that of 
Boldoa. We prefer that of Jussieu, as the appellation “Boldu” is peculiar to our plant. We are aware 
that there is a Boldea of CavaniUes, but that is the same with Salpianthus of Humb. and Bonpl. We have 
received specimens from Mr. Cruckshanks, Mr. Macrae, and Mr. Bridges, from the neighbourhood of Val- 
paraiso. The “ Laurel ” of Chili, {Laurelia aromatica, Juss., or Thiga chilensis, Mol., and Pavonia of the 
FI. Per.) belongs also to the order of Monimece, but this we have not seen. Mr. Cruckshanks informs us 
