Euphorhiacem.'] 
CALIFORNIA.—SUPPLEMENT. 
389 
Orb. LII. LAURINEZE. Juss. 
1. Oreodaphne(Unbellularia) Californica. Nees.db. Esenb. Laur. p. 463. — Tetranthera? 
Californica. Hook, et Am. supra, p. 159. — Laurus regia.? Dougl. Journal, in Hook. Comp. 
Bot. Mag. v. 2. 
Orb. LIII. EUPHORBIACE^. Juss. 
1. 'Euphoxhm polygonifolia L. — Hook. Flor. Bor. Am. II. p. 140. 
Hab. Snake country. Mr Tolrnie. 
HENDECANDRA. i’scA.— Astrogyne. Benth. 
Flores dioici. Masc. Calyx 5-fidus, laciniis Eestivatione subvalvatis. Petala nulla. Glandules 5, ad basin 
calycis sitse, laciniis oppositse. Stamina 6-10, eestivatione inflexa, libera : filamenta villosa : antherce adnatae, 
biloculares, ovales, loculis parallelis. Ovarii rudimentum nullum. Fem. Calyx 5-fidus. Petala nulla. 
Discus hypogynus carnosus obscure 5-lobus. Ovarium globosum, S-loculare, loculis uni-ovulatis, ovulis 
appensis. Styli 3, breves, radiantes, sub-4-partiti, laciniis smpe bifidis. Capsula subcoriacea, tricocca, 
seminibus solitariis. — Suffrutices procumbentes vel adscendentes, pilis stellatis lepidoto-incana. Folia 
oblonga, integerrima, obtusa vel acuta, nervo medio subtus valido. Flores masculi in racemis spiciformibus 
terminalibus oppositifoliisve dispositi, breviter pedicellati, bracteis parvis ifeminei subsolitarii. 
1. H. procumhens {Esch.) ; foliis longe petiolatis, racemis masculis abbreviatis petiolum 
vix superantibus (Tab. XCI.) Esch. in Mem. Acad. Sc. St. Petersh. : Linncea III. 
Litter, p. 150. 
Hab. San Francisco. Dr Sinclair. (H. M. S. Sulphur.) Douglas. Chamisso. 
That this is the genus and species described by Eschschotlz vre entertain no doubt, especially as we have 
received specimens so named from Chamisso. In the 3th volume of the Linnaea, p. 86, Chamisso and 
Schlechtendahl reduce it to Croton, and consider it no way different from C. gracilis of Kunth, from Mexico. 
Again, Mr Bentham, in his account of Hartweg’s Mexican plants. No. 83, makes of Croton gracilis his 
Astrogyne crotonoides, and expresses his doubts if Mr Douglas’ Californian specimens belong to the same, 
or form an allied species. An attentive comparison of Hartweg’s specimens, and of Douglas’ with 
Chamisso’s, leave however no doubt on our minds that they all belong to the same genus, but that the Mexi- 
can species is different from the Californian. The name Hendecandra is certainly not appropriate, but we 
are unwilling to change it for one so much more recent, and founded on another species. Eschscholtz does 
not seem correct as to the number or situation of the stamens, and Mr Bentham has omitted to notice the 
hypogynous disc : the styles are often more divided than is stated by either. Croton gracilis of Kunth or 
Astrogyne crotonoides, Benth. may be thus distinguished : — H. crotonoides ; foliis breviter petiolatis, racemis 
masculis elongatis folia fere duplo superantibus. 
Tab. XCI. A. Male Plant. — Fig. 1. Flower ; 2. Stamens and glands ; 3. Stamen. B. Female 
Plant, fig. 4. Advanced flower ; fig. 5. Capsule, with 1 lobe removed ; fig. 6. Lobe separated from the 
capsule ; fig. 7. The same cut open to show the position of the seed ; fig. 8. seed •.—magnified. 
