819 
PAZONIA cretica. 
Candian Peony. 
——<>— 
POLYANDRIA TRIGYNI4. 
Nat. ord. RANUNCULACER. Dec. prodr. 1. 2. syst. 1. 127. 
PAONIA. Supra vol. 1. fol. 42. ) 
P. cretica, foliis sublucidis bullulatis coriaceis subtus glaucis tomentosis, fo- 
liolis obtusis planis intermedio bilobo vy. integro, 
tentibus. Sabine MSS. 
P. arietina, oxoniensis. Anderson in Linn. trans. 12. 275. 
P. arietina, carnea. Dec. prodr. 1. 66. Me slit 
P. cretica. Sabine MSS. Clus. hist.1. p. 281. Dec. syst. 1. 394. no. 14. 
Caulis 1§-2 pedales, simplices, erecti, foliosi, obtusé angulati, ad basin 
glaberrimi, sursum puberuli. Folia erecta, biternata, plana, luteo-viridia, 
opaca, supra glabra rugosa, subtus glauca pubescentia, petiolo communi te- 
rete, bast puberulo, supra subcanaliculato, 4-unciali, partialibus pubescenti- 
bus, teretibus: lateralibus brevioribus ; foliola lateralia obliqua, basi decur- 
rentia, segmentt medii ovalia, lateralium ovato-lanceolata ; intermedia ovali- 
lanceolata, integra aut biloba. Flores erecti, ultra folia exsurgentes, pal- 
lidé carnet, demum albidi. Pedunculus teres, striatus, 3-uncialis, apice 
pubescens, paulo sub flore bracteam gerens lanceolatam, patentem, subcom- 
plicatam. Calyx 5-phyllus, subpilosus, sepalo exteriore parvo, ovato, apice 
foliaceo, spatulato, reliquis subrotundo-ovatis, cochleatis, venosis, paulo co- 
loratis, margine membranaceo colorato, interioribus duplo majoribus. Petala 
tenuia, corrugata. Ovaria bina, patentia, lanuginosa, stigmate compresso, 
gyratim recurvo, rubescente. Ss! = “e 
ovariis lanuginosis pa- 
This is principally characterized. by its. dwarf habit, 
early flesh-coloured flowers changing to nearly white, and 
shining, coriaceous, flat, blistered leaves, which are very - 
glaucous beneath. 
We have lately had many opportunities of examining 
the genus Pwonia, and of considering the various forms of 
it in a living state; and we cannot bring ourselyes to any 
other conclusion than this: that, of the supposed species 
which have been adopted in recent publications, nearly the 
whole of which we have repeatedly compared, the following 
only can be considered distinct. The practised eye may, in- 
deed, distinguish them, as it can the varieties of other cul- 
tivated plants; but their differences are not tangible, nor 
limits to those differences assignable. 
