106 Mr. Brown's Observations on the
Cook's second voyage, and now in the library of Sir Joseph Banks, there is a figure of this plant, from which it appears that he originally referred it to Staehelina; a proof that he had not at that time very carefully examined it. It is not improbable therefore that he afterwards proposed it as a distinct genus, belonging to Polygamia segregata, from finding that this had been already done by Solander, whose name (Cartodium), however, he did not think it necessary to adopt, and with whose generic character he probably was not acquainted. In his own he very erroneously states that there is no partial involucrum, and hence perhaps M. Labillardiere entirely overlooked Craspedia when he established his Richea from a nearly related species of the same genus. That such is the case I have long since briefly noticed*, and have ascertained by a comparison of the specimen of Craspedia uniflora in George Forster's Herbarium with Richea glauca of Labillardiere, and other species of the same genus which I have observed in New Holland.
M. Labillardiere's character of Richea is essentially correct. It is well to remark, however, that his general involucrum is formed of the bracteae subtending and in equal number with the outer partial capitula; and that the general receptacle has no other paleae than the analogous bracteae of the inner capitula. It is the more necessary to take this view of the structure, as I have found in New Holland a nearly related genus (Calocephalus), which differs from Craspedia and Richea in the want of these bracteae, as well as in the partial receptacles being without paleae;, and in the rays of the pappus being plumose only in the upper part. I have also another genus of this tribe (Leucophyta) from the same country, differing from Calocephalus in having a general involucrum consisting of a few short bracteae, in the squamae of its partial involucra being concave and bearded at top, and in the rays
- In Prodr. Flor. Nov. Holl. p. 555.
of
