Bad 
CONCEHICUIUacnainia cere n i mein 
Crim Meadow-saffron. 
—— 
HEXANDRIA 7RIGYNIA (v. mod) MONOGYNIA). 
Nat. ord. Sunci. Jussieu gen. 43. Div. IV. 
MELANTHACER. Brown prod. 1. 274. 
COLCHICUM. Cor. semisubterranea, infundibuliformis, disjunctis 
laciniarum unguibus hexapetala, vel istis in tubo conjunctis 6-fida. “Stam. 
summo ungui y. tubo inserta: anth. introrse, erecte v. subincumbentes 
spits mobiles. Styli 3 filiformes, vel nunc unus; stig. 3 linearia canalicu- 
lato-continua obtusa replicata. Caps. membranacea, oblonga, acuminata, 
triloba lobis unilocularibus, nunc inflatis, ad axim connexis, per suturam 
interiorem dehiscentibus : sem. numerosa, subglobosa, loculamentorum mar- 
ginibus intimis annexa. ‘ 
Bulbo-tuber Tutte simile, ovato-acuminatum, basi obliquatum, a mar- . 
gine altero attenuato-producto radicans, tunica crustaceo-membranaced ves- 
tttum, sobolem gemellam utrinque de basi enixum post peractam Sructifica- 
tionem emoriens. Fol. carnosula, 3-plura, alterna, inferné caulina, linearia 
angusta ad elliptica lata, plus minus tardiora flore, fructiis contemporanea, 
basi vaginantia. Caulis florifer humo latens, fructifer prominens. Flores 
1-plures, spathacet, terminales, majusculi, recti, rubentes v. candicantes. 
C. arenarium, 4-folium, uni-bi-(pluri?)florum; foliis ligulato-lanceolatis, sta- 
minibus ter feré corolla limbo brevioribus, subaquantibus stigmata. 
(«) seepids uniflorum, flore violaceo-purpurascente, limbi laciniis lanceolatis, 
foliis canescentibus. 
Colchicum arenarium. Wald. et Kitaib. pl. rar. hung. 2.195, t.179. Willd. 
in mag. d. gesell. nat. fr. zu berl. 1808. 26. ejusd. enum. 1. 401. 
(8) bi-(pluri?-)florum, flore diluté purpurascente, limbi laciniis lineari-oblongis 
obtusis; foliis gramineo-virentibus. 
Colchicum umbrosum; (e Taurid). Titulus quo de Mosché missum Suit ex- 
emplar D. Grifjini. 
Colchicum autumnalis var‘. floribus vulgd pluribus simul erumpentibus duplo 
minoribus staminibus pistillo wqualibus. Marsch. bieb. fl. taur. cauc. 
suppl. 281. 
Drawn at Mr. Griffin’s, where the plant had been re- 
ceived from Moscow, under the title of Concuicum wmbro- 
sum, and marked as native of the Crimea. It is quite new 
in our gardens. Like most of this genus, it produces the 
flower in the autumn and the leaves the ensuing spring. 
We ‘believe it to be the same as the plant cited from 
Marschal’s Flora, and possibly a variety of the Hungarian 
plant ; although of this fact we have considerable doubt; 
the two differing not only in colour of the flower, but also 
