Mr. ANDERSON’S Monograph of the Genus Paonia. 289 
France to settle the matter decidedly. Of M. De Candolle’s 
P: peregrina B. “ ovariis glabetrimis," we have hinted our belief 
that it might be referred to P. humilis: M. De Candolle, in his 
Flore Francaise, suspected it to be P. peregrina in an unhealthy 
state, and not a variety, which I am inclined to think very likely: 
If it be a distinct variety, I certainly never have had it under 
examination. | 
I have now compared all the species described in our paper 
with those of M. De Candolle, except P. mollis, which being quite 
a new plant, unknown in France, and not described before by 
. any author, was not likely to have been noticed by him. His 
P. Moutan, P.corallina, P.officinalis, P. Daurica, P.albiflora, P.hu- 
milis, P. anomala, and P. tenuifolia, are the same as our species. 
so called: his P. peregrina I think is referable in its varieties to 
our P. paradoxa and P. peregrina; his P. lobata I believe to be 
our PP. decora; and I am ready to admit P. hybrida as distinct 
from P.tenuifolia, when the evidence of its existence is confirmed ; 
our P.arietina and P.mollis are decidedly new. It therefore only 
remains to notice two additional species enumerated by M. De 
Candolle as doubtful ones; viz. P. Tataricaand P. laciniata, both 
of which I conceive must be withdrawn from the list of genije 
species. 
He appears to have been induced to notice P. Tiataried welely 
on the authority of Miller, the plant not being otherwise known 
to him, for he only refers to Miller's Dict. no. 5, and Miller’s. 
Ic. t. 199. Miller says this plant was raised from fed obtained 
from the Levant, and that there is a double and single variety 
of it, the figure in his Icones being intended for the double one. 
M. De Candolle, on the authority of Miller, calls it a native of 
Tartary, but I cannot find any statement in Miller's Dictionary 
to justify this supposition. Miller's P. Tatarica is however our 
OL. XII. 2 P P. paradoxa, 
e 
