575 
C 
PENTAPETES pheenicea. 
Scarlet-flowered Pentapetes. 
ee 
MONADELPHIA DODECANDRIA. 
Nat. ord. MAtvAcER. Jussieu gen. 271. Div. V. Stamina basi in ur- 
ceolum sessilem connata, sterilia fertilibus intermixta, definita aut rarits ~ 
indefinita. 
PENTAPETES. Cal. duplex: exterior 3-phyllus, unilateralis, cadu- 
cus: foliolis linearibus, acuminatis: interior monophyllus, 5-partitus, per- 
sistens; laciniis lanceolatis, acuminatis, patentibus, corolld longioribus. 
Pet. 5, subrotunda, patentia, urceolo staminum affixa. Fil. 15, filiformia, 
erecta, corolla breviora, inferné in urceolum 5-gonum coalita, superné 
libera: anth. sagittate, erecta: ligule 5, lineari-lanceolate, petaliformes, 
erectze, inter terna stamina singule, ex urceolo prodeuntes. Germ, ovatum: 
stylus filiformis, superné incrassatus, striatus, stamiaibus longior, persistens: 
stigma obsolete 5-dentatum. Caps. membranacea, subglobosa, acuminata, 
Bitnos 5-valy.: dissepimentis contrariis: sem. octona, ovata, acuta, utrin- 
que 4 dissepimento interius aflixa. Lin. gen. pl. 2. 459. 
P. pheenicea. Lin. sp. pl. ed. 2. 2.958. J. Miller itlustr. J. G.Miller sp. 
~ pl. Lamarck illustr. t. 576. f. 1.  Gertn. sem. 2. 248. t. 184. fig. 4. 
Trew pl. rar. 7. t. 5. Willd. sp. pl. 3.727. Hort.. Kew. ed. 2. 4. 193. 
Pentapetes, Miller ic. 133. tab. 200. — 
Dombeya pheenicea. Cavan. diss. 3. 129. t. 43. fig. 1. 
Alcwa fruticosa pentaphylloides wmula floribus ameenissimis rubellis, calyce 
producto. Pluk. alm. t. 126, fig. 4. : 
Alcez indice cognata planta. Pluk. alm. 18. t. 255. fig. 3. 
Blattaria zeylanica, flore amplo coccineo. Comm. hort. 1. 11. t. 6. 
Flos impius. Rumph. amb. 5. 288. t. 100. jig. 1. 
Naga-Pu. Rhcede mal. 10. 111. ¢. 56. 
/ 
—————$ 
an ara 
The subjoined account of our plant is by Sir James E. 
Smith. 
“ PenrarETES (revtererec, having five leaves), an ancient 
name for Cinquefoil, adopted for a very different plant by 
Linnzeus. Though he declines any explanation of it, the 
five leafy expansions, which, in his PenrapErEs, accompany 
the stamens, seem so well to account for this appellation, 
that one cannot but think the idea of such an adaptation of 
the word had occurred to him, though he might have for- 
gotten it when he wrote the Philosophia Botanica, p. 175. 
There seems otherwise no possibility of accounting for his 
choice of the name, for the particular genus in question; 
rR 2 
