It is most successfully propagated by seeds, which usually ripen in this country; it may also be raised from cuttings, but not readily, agreeing in this respect with leguminous plants in general.
We do not find in Linnæus's works any figure of this plant referred to; but there is a minute description of it in his _Sp. Pl._
It is usually kept in the greenhouse; being a native of Spain, it may probably be more hardy than we imagine.
_Cal._ 4-phyllus. _Cor._ 4-fida. _Filamenta_ receptaculo inserta. _Antheræ_ apice bifidæ pertusæ. _Caps._ 4-locularis, 4-valvis, polysperma.
ERICA _physodes_ antheris cristatis, corollis ovatis inflatis, stylo incluso, foliis quaternis, floribus subsolitariis. _Linn. Syst. Vegetab. Murr. p. 366._ _Berg. Cup. 108._
ERICA _physodes_ cristata, foliis quaternis linearibus, floribus umbellatis viscosis, calyce ovato brevi. _Thunb. Prodr. p. 74._
The _Erica physodes_ is a native of the Cape, and another of those species which have been introduced since the publication of the _Hort. Kew._ of Mr. Aiton.
It is principally distinguished by the form, and delicate whiteness of its blossoms, which are so extremely viscid as to retain flies and other insects which settle on them.
Is scarcely to be increased by cuttings, more readily by seeds, which sometimes ripen here.
_Cal._ 6-phyllus. _Cor._ 6-fida, campanulata. _Stigmata 6._ _Caps._ infera, 6-locularis, polysperma.
CANARINA _Campanula_ caule erecto, foliis hastatis ternis oppositisve. _Martyn Mill. Dict. Linn. Syst. Veg. ed. 14._ _Murr. p. 344._ _Ait. Kew. v. 1. p. 480._ _Linn. Mant. p. 225._
CAMPANULA _canariensis_ capsulis quinquelocularibus, foliis hastatis dentatis oppositis petiolatis. _Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 3. p. 238._
CAMPANULA _canariensis_ regia _s._ medium radice tuberosa, foliis sinuatis cæsiis atriplicis æmulis ternis circum caulem ambientibus, flore amplo pendulo colore flammeo rutilante. _Pluk. Alm. 76. t. 276. f. 1._
The flowers of this plant so strongly resemble those of the Campanula, that it is no wonder the older Botanists regarded it as such, Linnæus himself did so at first, and Miller also; and even now it may perhaps be doubted whether it ought to be made a distinct genus of, since it is found to differ principally in the number of its parts of fructification.