emplify it by the figures of two samples, which seem 
the extremes of its unadulterated variation. (B), the 
subject of the present article, is nearly, if not precisely, in 
the state in which the species has been shown by Mr. Syden- 
ham Edwards, in the 1178th article of Curtis’s Botanical 
Magazine; a figure drawn from a sample in Mr. Wood- 
ford’s collection at Vauxhall, where the plant was ex- 
amined and described by ourselves. Mr. Herbert’s asser- 
tions concerning that figure are wholly erroneous, as a 
reference to the subject itself will prove to any one who may 
take the trouble of turning to it. And we repeat, that 
if the plant Mr. Herbert says he was shown at Mr. Wood- 
ford’s for the one drawn by Mr. Edwards was really Ama- 
RYLLIS longifolia, it certainly was not that which Mr. 
Edwards had drawn and we had described. 
Whether (A) is specificaliy different from (B) or not, is 
a point we do not take upon ourselves to decide; and can 
only say, that judging from the intermediate variations we 
have seen, throughout which the essential difference that 
distinguishes revoluta from longifolia has been constantly 
and unequivocally maintained, we believe them varieties 
of each other. ‘The delightful fragrance that renders the 
species one of the most desirable plants for the hothouse, 
is constant to all the varieties we have noticed. 
Introduced from the Cape of Good Hope by Mr. Francis 
Masson in 1774; but still exceedingly rare in our collec- 
tions, where we do not remember to have seen a single 
plant for sale. 
‘The sample for the present drawing was sent to Messrs. 
Ridgway by Lord Mountnorris, from his collection at Areley 
Hall in Staffordshire. That of (A), which will be found 
in the next fasciculus, was sent by H. R. H. Prince Leopold 
of Cobourg, from the collection at Claremont. 
Flowers in the autumn in the hothouse. 
