O70. 
IPOM@A  chryseides.. 
Mr. Herbert's Ipomeea. . 
—=—— ; 
PENTANDRIA JJONOGYNIA. 
Nat. ord. Convotvutt. Jussieu gen. 132. Div. I. Stylus unicus. 
ConvoLvuLace®. Brown prod. 481. Sect. I. Germ. 1. 
IPOM@A. Supra vol. 1. fol. 9. ; 
I. chryseides, foliis oblongo-cordatis angulari-acuminatis, nunc repando- 
subdentatis rard obsoleté subtrilobis; pedunculis supernis tri- (nadiscum 
abarti uni-) floris brevioribus tolio, infernis sub7floris 3-4-plo longiori- 
bus folio: calyce levissimo, radiis multiplicibus atro-virentibus insignito, 
mucronato-retuso, rigidissimo. 
Convolvulus. Herb. Banks. Exemplar in India Orientali & Keenigio lectum. 
Quoll-fa. Chinensibus. Dom. Herbert in litt. 
Perennis, suffruticosa, gracilis, filiformi-ramosa, verruculis minutissimis 
tactui plus minus scabruta, ceterum nudiuscula, striata, fuscescens. Fol. 
subsecunda, distantia, glabra, 1% unci@ longa, ubi latiora latitudine 3 uncie, 
nervo medio alios horizontali-ascendentes utringue emittente: petiolus duplo 
Jere brevior folio v. illi subequalis, supra canaticulo subtilissimé villoso. 
Pedunculi solitarii, axillares, tereles, firmt, crassiores petiolis, erectiusculi, 
cymula trichotoma 3-7-floré terminati, sepé ut rami granuloso-scabrati, in 
hortis nostratibus sepius ob florum 2 lateralium abortum uniflori, pedicellis 
quinguiés sexiésve brevioribus illis, aliquando flore altero axilla trichotomie 
sessilis, Cal. campanulato-connivens, viridis, crassiusculus subcartilagineo- 
durus, radiis crebris verticalibus obscuré viridibus superné divergentibus nota- 
tus, foliolis erectis laté cuneatis retuso-truncatis mucrone corniculiformi, 2? 
summo margine subciliatis. Cor. lutea, hypocrateriformis, tubo et plicis limby 
extis rubro-fulvescente lineisque pallidis notata; tubus altiar calyce, intis 
inferné pilosus: limbus rotatus dtametro subsemunciali, brevissimé 5-lobus, 
rotundatus absque omni angulo lobis emarginatis. Anth. ovato-oblonge, in- 
oumbentes. Stig. granuloso-globosum, longus exsuperans stamina, 
—— 
It may certainly be imputed to the distinctions which 
have been of late adhered to in deciding between Inomaia 
and Convoivuwus, that their adoption has been arbitrary and — 
empirical; and that generic marks have been assumed inde-_ 
endently of their controul over the habit of either group. 
But besides answering in point of convenience, we find 
them in fact at least so far consequent, as that they are | 
seen to determine the exclusion of the former genus from | 
within the boundaries of Europe, where the latter ranges 
throughout by various species. ’ 
Among the unnamed specimens of Convoivunus in the | 
Banksian Herbarium, we find two of the present species, 
