from July to September, and producing seed freely. It 

 perished at the first approach of frost. 



r 



It is with much regret that we find ourselves obliged to 

 difi^er from our valued friend Professor Graham, in the name 

 to be assigned to this species. It may be very true that it 

 is the L. hispida of Linnasus, although it would seem, from 

 M. Decandolle's Prodromus, that that plant is at least a 

 well-marked variety of this ; but, admitting it to be the 

 L. hispida itself, it appears to us that, however sacred 

 the law of priority of names may be, yet this is one of 

 those cases in which it is not only justifiable, but even 

 necessary to depart from it. Linnaeus knew but one Loasa, 

 and he naturally enough called it hispida ; but surely 

 when twenty species have been discovered, all hispid, many 

 as much so as the original, and some more so, it is better 

 to adopt the name proposed by the first Botanist that 

 described the genus with any sort of accuracy, rather thari 

 that of a naturalist whose appellation would never have 

 been applied had he known but a little more of the genus. 

 The Swedish Botanist himself made no scruple of treating: 

 nis predecessors or even contemporaries thus; and we 

 submit, with great deference to those who hold a con- 

 trary opinion, that there is no such magic in the name 

 of Linnaeus, at the present day, as to exempt his nomen- 

 clature from a similar castigation. L. ambrosisefolia itself 

 is not perhaps the very best name that could have been 

 contrived, but it involves no absurdity. 



It might also perhaps be urged, not without reason, 

 that more inconvenience would be now found in reverting 

 to the forgotten name of Linnaeus than in adhering to the 

 more recent one of Jussieu, which has been generally 

 adopted by succeeding Botanists. 



J. L. 



