——— 
— 
a 
— SS a a a a TT 
——EE—E—E— EE 
,. 190 
EUPHORBIA punicea. 
Scarlet Spurge. tie 
soe 
- DODECANDRIA 7RIGYNIA. 
Nat. ord. Euruorsrx. Jussieu gen. 385. 
3 ‘ vas R 
Div. I. Styli plures definiti, seeplus tres. , 7 
‘EUPHORBIA. Hermaphrodita. Cal. 1-phyllus turbinatus, limbo 
4-5 dentato, dentibus inflexis, Petala 4-5, calyci alterné dentibus cal ycinis 
externé inserta, forma varia, crassiuscula, nunc glanduliformia, nunc sim- 
Plicia, nunc 2-8-fida aut rarids multifida. Stam. indefinita 12 aut plura, 
rarius pauciora ; Jjilamenta receptaculo inserta, medio articulata, diverso, 
tempore erumpentia; anthere didyme. Istis fertilibus interjiciuntur alia 
sterilia paleacea aut squamosa, definita aut sepiis indefinita, simplicia aut 
sepils ramosa vel fimbriata.. Germen inter stamina centrale stipitatum 
3-gonum ; styli 3. Capsula stipite reflexo extra calycem nutans 3-cocca 
3-sperma. Plante lactescentes, herbacee aut Sruticose, erecte aut rariis 
repentes, aphyllee aut sepins foliose. Jussieu gen. $85; (nonnullis variatis). 
rn ee S| ee ee ee 
E. punicea, umbella quinquefida; trifida, involucellis ovalibus acuminatis 
coloratis, capsulis glabris foliis obovato-lanceolatis subtis glaucis. 
Swarlz prodr. 76. : 
Euphorbia punicea. Swartz ind, occid. 2. 873. Hort. Kew. 2. 143. ed. 2. 3. 
167. Smith ic. pict. 3. Jacq. ic. rar. t. 484, coll. 2.179. Willde sp. pls 
2. 916. ed * 
Fe a ee Es ee See eee Pree 
A favourite decoration of our hothouses. Introduced 
from Jamaica in 1778, by Mr. Wallen. It is a smooth 
fleshy-wooded’ milky shrub, attaining sometimes the height 
of seven feet. In the present Specimen Mr. Edwards ap- 
pears to have met’ throughout with only two leaflets to 
each’ scarlet partial involucre: the number varies to 3. 
In’place of the detailed description of the species, we 
have subjoined, from Mr. Brown’s instructive treatise on 
the botany of Terra Australis, in the Appendix to Flinders’s 
Voyage, an opinion of the structure of the flower, formed sub- 
sequently to that laid down by Linnzeus, which still con- 
tinues the routinary precedent of the systematic catalogues. 
“The view. I take of the structure of EupHorsra is, in 
“one important particular at least, different from those 
“given by Lamarck, Ventenat, Richard and De Candolle, 
“ though possibly the same that Jussieu has hinted at; so 
“briefly, however, and I may add obscurely, that if his 
“supposition be really analogous to what I shall presently 
“ offer; he has not been so understood by those who profess 
to follow him in this respect.” 
