Mr. Brown, on the Proteacee of Jussieu. 43 
^ Andlastly, Having acquired more perfect materials and per- 
‘ceiving the insufficiency of his characters, he united them to- 
gether, thus ending exactly where he commenced. TT 
_ But, as in this he bas been universally followed for nearly forty 
years, Protea can no longer be considered as more strongly as- 
sociated with any one species of the genus than another ; and 
therefore this name so familiar to botanists, if the necessity of 
again subdividing the genus be allowed; ought. certainly to 
be given to that part which is best known, and which contains 
the greatest number of published species, especially if the name 
‘be at least as applicable to this as to any other subdivision: now 
this part unquestionably is the Lepidocarpodendron of Boer- 
haave, the Protea of the first edition of the Genera Plantarum 
and Classes Plantarum, and of the present Essay. 
The question respecting the application of the name Leuca- 
dendron is reducible to a-smaller compass. Mr. Salisbury is 
aware that the Linnean character of the genus is only ap- 
plicable to Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave; and therefore, 
‘consistently with the reasons which determined him in his appli- 
cation of the name Protea, Leucadendron ought to have been 
retained for that which he has called Erodendrum in Paradisus 
Londinensis ; and this it seems he would have done, had it not 
‘been differently used by Plukenet, whom he professes to follow 
in this respect. But as rejecting Linnean names when accom. 
. panied by characters, for those of Plukenet who never published 
a single character, is somewhat unusual, it must be supposed to ` 
have arisen from the latter author's more appropriate use of: this 
significant name, while it may also be presumed that Linneeus’s 
application of it is wholly unsuitable; and it is at least: to 
be expected that in his own application he is consistent: with 
Plukenet, whom he means to follow. | 
62 To 
