and loosely arranged, with none of the compactness and 
regularity for which the C. japonica is so much admired. 
The genuine species of this genus are now three; viz. 
C. japonica, C. reticulata, and the plant called in the 
gardens the double Sasanqua, and figured in this work at 
fol. 547. The following brief characters will distinguish 
these species from each other :— 
C. japonica; calyce 5-phyllo, ovario glabro. - 
C. reticulata; calyce 5-phyllo colorato, ovario sericeo. 
C. maliflora; calyce polyphyllo, ovario glabro. (Camellia Sasanqua 
flore pleno. Supra, vol. 7. fol. 547.) 
The C. reticulata has the habit of ©. japonica. The 
leaves are rigid, oblong, acuminate at each end, serrated, 
flat, not shining, and reticulated with deeply sunken veins. 
Flowers very large, bright clear purple, with the appearance 
of a Peony. Calyx imbricated, 5-leaved, more or less 
stamed with purple. Petals. 17-18, somewhat repand, 
wavy, generally entire, loosely arranged. Stamens much 
shorter than the petals, at the base irregularly mona- 
delphous in several rows, the inner ones rather separate 
from the others ; they are often divided into several bundles, 
which are placed opposite the inner petals. Ovarium 
roundish, silky, 4-celled, with several distichous ovules. 
Style 4-fid, smooth. ` Stigmata simple. The style is occa- 
sionally 2 or 3-fid, and the ovarium 2 or 3-celled. 
__. We avail ourselves of a vacant page to say a word 
or two upon the subject of species and varieties, to which 
` we are led not so much by the plant now before us, as by 
a considération of the numerous’ doubtful species that 
necessarily come under our notice in conducting a work 
like the present, in which garden-plants alone are intro- 
duced.' Tt appears to us, that the most perfect definition 
of a species that can be offered, is that-which determines 
all plants to be of the same species which are capable, 
by mutual :impregnation, of producing a fertile progeny: 
but it must be obvious, that however perfect this definition 
may be in theory, it is at present wholly inapplicable 
to practice, except in a few cases. Our knowledge of the 
mutual relation of plants is still so extremely incomplete, 
and the experience of cultivators has hitherto proved. so 
little, that a definition of the nature of that just mentioned 
is useless for the general purposes of scientific arrangement. 
