of very rare occurrence, for no notice is taken of it in Messrs. 
Hooker and Arnott's valuable catalogue of Chilian plants, nor do I 
see for what species those authors, who I presume must have had all 
Mr. Cuming's collection, could have mistaken it. The only new 
species they mention is (E. mendocinensis, which was not found by 
Mr. Cuming, and which seems from the description to be a very dif- 
ferent plant. It is no doubt improbable that the same species should 
be found in Chile and in Florida, but I am still at a loss to discover 
the difference between CE. concinna and (E. humifusa. 
With regard to the observations I felt called upon to make upon 
the absurdity and mischievousness of the endless changes of names 
introduced into Botany by some Botanical writers, | cannot but feel 
upon consideration that it was wrong in me to assign particular motives 
to Mr. er for his proceedings, however much I might be disposed 
to ridieule or condemn them. As it is not my nature to be either 
uncharitable or unjust, I do not scruple to take this opportunity of 
recalling that part of the remarks, in which I assigned Mr. Spach 
a place in the school of Schreber; but in stating this I by no means 
wish to be understood as withdrawing one word of the remainder of 
the criticism. On the contrary I regard such a case as that which 
elicited my animadversions to be one of those which there is no hope 
of curing without the application of the actual cautery, 
