179 
appeared in 1805, then beyond all question Smith’s Vuphar must 
pass into synonymy, and Salisbury’s Castalia obtain the place to 
which priority would entitle it. It must be left to some one 
whose library facilities exceed mine to settle this question of the 
dates of publication. As I have intimated above, I am suspi- 
cious that in the matter of these water-lily genera, we have 
another instance of that discreditable treatment of Salisbury’s 
genera and species, with which British botanists both of his own 
and later times are chargeable.* 
‘The uncritical reader will perchance infer from what I have 
been saying, that Smith’s Muphar and Salisbury’s Castalia are 
synonymous, which is not the case; for the last-named author 
kept the classical name Nymphaea oe the yellow- flowered, or 
nuphar species, and this with good reason. It was very. li 
these plants to which Mymphea was first applied. Then, fo 
more showy red and white and blue-flowered genus he propo 
the new and beautiful name, Cas¢alia ; one which I judge, from 
all I am able.to gather out of the books to which access is 
afforded me, will;have to be restored. 
I must not conclude this note without pausing to qualify one . 
general statement made at the outset. It is not true that every 
one of the pre-Linnzan botanists confused the two genera herein 
discussed. They were accurately defined and separately named 
eighty-five years before either Salisbury or Smith took them in 
hand, and that by the very celebrated author, Boerhaave (1720). 
He seemed to know that it was to the homely yellow-flowered 
plants (our nuphars) that the name Vymphea belonged, and so 
he left it to designate that group; hence Salisbury, in doing 
‘the same thing, no doubt purposely followed him. For our 
nymphzas (Castalia, as Salisbury called them), he coined the 
name Leuconymphea. Luckily for us who all will prefer the 
easy and graceful Castalia to the lumbering Leuconymphea, 
Boerhaave’s priority goes for naught, inasmuch as it is prior to 
Linné; but the credit of seeing the two genera in what all before 
him had called one, and of clearly bringing out their several dis- 
tinguishing points belongs to him, and not to any lights of this 
more favored and more boastful age. 
oe See Journal of Botany, xxiv, 49 and 296. 
