218 
CHINA. 
{PontederiecB. 
S. ovalifolia of Roxburgh, appears to be very closely allied to this species, but is said to have a compound 
umbel ; if, however, as we think highly probable, his plant be a mere form of Rheede’s Kari Vilandi, Hort. 
Mai. 7. t. 31., it would only be distinguishable by its larger size. We have seen a specimen in Dr. Wight’s 
Herbarium exactly agreeing with Rheede’s figure. 
2. ^xnWax pseudo-China. Linn,? — S. Indica. Burm. FI. Ind. p.2\S. 
Linnaeus and most systematic authors mention this as a native of North America only : Loureiro and 
Roxburgh, however, introduce it into their respective Floras, and it seems to agree well with Burmann’s 
S. Indica. We cannot perceive any difference between our Chinese and North American specimens. 
3. Smilax glabra ; caule teretiusculo inermi, foliis inermibus anguste lanceolatis acumina- 
tis basi obtusiusculis utrinque glabris supra lucidis niargine integerrimis, umbellis (fl. fern.) 
axillaribus sessilibus, pedicellis gracilibus petiolum sequantibus. — S. glabra. Roxh. Fl. Ind. 
3. p. 702. ? — S. lanceolata. Burnt. Fl. Ind. p. 213. — Lour. Fl. Cock. 2. p. 764. 
Roxburgh describes his plant vrith leaves glaucous on the under side, and with the “ calycine leaflets 
broad, obcordate, sessile.” We have not seen the perianth ; the leaves in our specimens are not at all 
glaucous underneath. Roxburgh mentions that the root of his plant is large and tuberous ; Loureiro says it 
is filiform and not tuberous. Notwithstanding these differences in description, we are disposed to consider 
Loureiro’s plant to be the same as that of Roxburgh. The true S. lanceolata is a North American species ; 
Sprengel places it among those with a prickly and angled stem ; all other authors describe it as unarmed, 
nor have we found any prickles. 
1. Ophiopogon Ker. Bot. Reg. t. 593. — Sims, Bot. Mag.t. 1063.— Convallaria 
spicata. Thunh. Jap. p. 141. — Liriope spicata. Lour. Fl. Cock. 1./?. 200. — Fluggea spicata. 
Schult. Syst. 7. p. 309. 
Ord. LXXXL ASPHODELE^. R. Br. 
1. Dianella odorata. Blume. — Schult. Syst. 7. p. 350. — Dracaena ensifolia. Lour. Fl. 
Cock. 1. p. 243. 
Some of our specimens present a nearly simple panicle as described by Blume and figured by Rumphius 
(5. t. 73.); but others have it as much branched as in D. ensifolia: this last form exactly coincides with what 
we have described as D. Sandwichensis, supr. p. 97, which may therefore be considered as not different 
from Blume’s plant. Blume seems to consider it only as a cultivated plant in India, so that it is not impro- 
bable but it may have been originally introduced from the Sandwich Islands. The leaves are perfectly 
smooth to the touch along the margins, even when the latter are carefully unrolled, but in the true B. ensi- 
folia, the serratures are often distant and extremely minute ; so that, as the habit is preeisely the same, 
there may be a question as to the propriety of keeping them up as distinct species. — We have it from Can- 
ton (Mr. Millett), and from Lappas Island (Mr. Vachell, n. 126.) 
1. Barnardia 5c^7/o^</es. Lindl. in Bot. Reg. t. 1029. — Schult. Syst. 7.p. 555. — Ornitbo- 
galum Sinense. Lour. Fl. Coch. 1. p. 255. 
Hab. Macao ; Mr. Millett. Lappas Island ; Rev. G. H. Vachell, n. 128. 
Ord. LXXXII. PONTEDERIE^. Rich. Kunth. 
1. Pontederia ovata; foliis ovatis acuminatis basi Iteviter cordatis multinerviis, racemo 
paucifloro laxo breviter pedunculate e medio petioli erumpente, fructifero erecto. 
