CompositcB.] 
CALIFORNIA.— SUPPLEMENT. 
357 
tabulam). Fisch. et Mey. Ind. 3. Sem. Petrop. 1837. n. I4>4f9. Linncea, XIL Litter, p. 102. 
Schauer, Del. Sem. H. Vrat. 1837. p. 3. Linncea, XII. Litt. p. 89. 
This genus differs from Oxyura by the achenia of the disk having a pappus and being pubescent ; from 
Callichroa, by the form of the achenia, the entirely paleaceous receptacle, and the pappus being unequal in 
length and rather more paleaceous ; from Hartmannia, by the paleee of the pappus not being membranous, 
and the form of the achenia of the ray ; and from Madaraglossa, by the paleae of the pappus not plumosely 
ciliated or villous at the base. It is unnecessary to propose a new generic character, as that given by Fischer 
and Meyer, combined with Schauer’s observations, 1. c., under Oxyura and Callichroa, is sufficient. 
1. Callichroa platyglosm. Fisch. et Mey. Ind. 2. Sem. Petrop. p. 31. et Ind. 3. n. 
34)7. Schauer Del. Sem. H. Vrat. 1837. p. 3. Don in Sweet, Br. FI. Gard. p. 1. 1. 373. De 
Cand. Prod. 7. p. 294. 
Very similar in habit to the two preceding ; our wild specimens were collected by Mr Douglas, although 
unnoticed as such by De Candolle. 
1. HsLYimanma fasciculata. De Cand. Prod. b. p. 693. 
The paleae to the florets of the disk are about eight in number (not five as in De Candolle’s generic cha- 
racter), equal in length, but unequal in breadth, and are irregularly inciso-serrated towards the apex ; the 
terminal tooth or segment being very acute, so that the paleae can scarcely be called obtuse as they are de- 
scribed in De Candolle’s Prodromus. 
2. H. corymhosa. De Cand. Prod. 5. p. 694. 
With this we are unacquainted. 
3. H. ciliata. De Cand. Prod. 5. p. 694. 
This also w'e have not seen ; the want of a pappus seems to remove it from the genus ; perhaps it ought 
to be united to Oxyura. 
4. H.? pungens ; herbacea basi sublignosa confertim foliosa, caule parce ramoso pilis 
albidis setoso, foliis inferioribus pinnatifidis, lobis oblongis vel oblongo-lanceolatis spinoso- 
mucronatis, superioribus ac fasciculorum axillarium linearibus integris rigidis spinescenti- 
bus margine recurvis papilloso-pilosis, capitulis subsolitariis bracteatis, involucri squamis 
spinescentibus glandulosis ligulas radii bifidas subasquantibus, acheniis epapposis radii 
gibbis areola terminali valde obliqua, receptaculo toto paleaceo, paleis lanceolato-subu- 
latis spinescentibus. Hook. Ic. PI. v. 4. t. 334. 
This is a very remarkable plant, more like a species of Navarretia among the PolemoniacecB than one of 
the present Order. We can find no trace of it in De Candolle’s Prodromus. 
1. Layia gaillardioides ; decumbens setis patentibus rigidulis undique hispida, foliis 
oblongo-lanceolatis inferioribus inciso-serratis superioribus integris, ramulis floribus 
monocephalis subelongatis, ligulis 12-15 obovatis apice trifidis discum duplo superanti- 
bus, pappo disci fulvo. — Layia galardioides. De Cand. Prod. 7. p. 294. — Tridax? Hook, 
et Arn. supra, p. 148. 
The genus Layia, which we had suggested for this plant, is the same as Madaraglossa, the only difference 
being that in the latter the paleae of the receptacle are all placed between the ray and the disk, not spread 
over it. The above species we have not received from Douglas. Larjia we retain to a leguminose plant 
described supra, p. 182. 
