which, as it appears to us, have definitions been hitherto 
applied which can be considered positive or discriminative. 
The genera Cytisus, Spartium, and Genista, may be 
stated in exemplification of this remark. For ourselves, we 
are unable to perceive any real limits between them ; be- 
cause, although it cannot be denied that there are certain 
general marks by which they may in many cases be distin- 
guished; yet these do not accord with the technical cha- 
racters of botanists. It may indeed be said, that Genista 
can be known by its spines; Spartium by its wiry or rush- 
like habit; and Cytisus by its being neither spiny nor rush- 
like; yet if these groups so distinguished be examined, no 
combination of them, according to the received rules of 
botanical generic definition, can be, or, at least, has been 
produced. There is some evidence of the accuracy of this 
statement in Professor Link’s recent work, the Enumeratio 
Horti Berolinensis, in which the author has, with consider- 
able ingenuity, formed fresh combinations of the species of 
the above-mentioned genera, distinguishing them by the 
following characters : | 
Genista. Cal. bilabiatus, labiis 3. Legumen polyspermum compressum. 
SPARTIUM. > Cal. bilabiatus, labiis integris apice. denticulatis. Legumien 
mono-dispermum. f KL... 
Cyrisus. Cal bilabiatus, labiis integris aut denticulatis. 
But in order to .render these definitions applicable, M. 
Link has been obliged, as it seems to us, to abandon an in- 
definite natural arrangement for a definite (perfectly?) but 
very artificial distribution. Thus Cytisus foliolosus and 
divaricatus, with Spartium linifolium, &c. are referred: to 
Genista, in which nevertheless the prickly true Genistas are 
retained; Spartium junceum removed into a distinct genus; 
and Spartium scoparium, multiflorum, &c. transferred to 
Cytisus along with Cytisus Laburnum. - 
J. L..; 
