ENUMERATION OF LEGUMINOS®. 427 
was complete in his publisher’s hands by December, 1835, 
and his preface bears that date, but it was not issued to the 
public till the 14th of February, 1836; Ecklon and Zeyher’s 
work was probably printed off as it was completed, and was 
actually published, as dated on the cover, in the course of 
January, 1836. Upon these data, Dr. Meissner argues that 
Meyer’s, which bears the earliest date, and was in fact first 
completed, is to be considered as having the priority, whilst 
Dr. Walpers relies strictly on priority of publication ; and 
although in ordinary cases, the date a work bears should be 
taken as its real date, yet that can only be where it is not 
contradicted by positive evidence, and it is not, I believe, at- 
tempted to be denied that Ecklon and Zeyher’s was first in 
the hands of the public. Much, therefore, as it is to be 
regretted that so carefully worked up a memoir as this por- 
tion of E. Meyer's Commentationes should be postponed, 
especially considering the unfair insinuations alluded to by 
Meissner, yet according to established rules, wherever the / 
question is one of mere priority, it must be adjudged to | 
Ecklon and Zeyher's Enumeratio. 
The plan pursued by the author or authors of this Enume- 
natio (who, it has been said, was for the most part neither of 
those whose name it bears) appears to have been ; firstly, to 
multiply species as much as possible, and secondly, to group 
them according to general aspect ; thus, where a set of plants 
did not look like other species of known genera, all that had 
a general similarity of appearance have been put together, a 
new generic name given them, and some one species ex- 
amined for a character without verifying it in the others. 
The consequence has been, that almost all the species, not re- 
examined by other botanists, must remain as mere puzzles. 
Dr. Meyer’s Commentationes, on the contrary, bear evi- 
dence of great pains taken in the examination of every 
species, and although botanists may not always agree with 
him in the circumscription of genera, always a more or less 
arbitrary matter, or in his identifications of Thunberg’s plants, 
in which there must be so much of guess-work, yet, in all 
