ON THE DISTINCTION OF SPECIES. 613 
Lipozyges argentea, Meissn. supra, p. 80.— Uitenhage. 
Amongst Thunberg’s Ononides, not mentioned above, 
there may also possibly be some species distinet from any I 
have seen, but until his specimens can be examined they 
must remain doubtful. 
(To be continued.) 
Remarks on the Distinction of Species in Nature, and in Books ; 
preliminary to the notice of some variations and transi- - 
tions of character, observed in the native plants of Britain. 
By Hewerr C. Watson, Esq. 
It is made abundantly evident by each successive publica- 
tion on the plants of Britain, that our native botanists are 
yet far from agreed upon the limits and characters of the 
species which they describe. Since the period when single 
specific names, and exact descriptions superseded the loose 
nomenclature of the older botanists, we have had Floras of 
England successively from the pens of Hudson, Withering, 
Smith, Lindley, and Hooker; besides several others, which 
experienced a smaller share of popular favour and support. 
In no two of these works, is there the same arrangement of 
individual plants into species, or of species into genera. 
Forms or varieties which have been united into single 
species by one author, have been disjoined by others, who 
have named and described them, as if distinct species. It is 
less remarkable, that many such changes should have been 
made in generic arrangements; since genera are allowed to 
be purely conventional groups. But species are commonly 
believed to have a distinct and permanent existence in nature, 
and ought, therefore, to remain the same in books which 
profess to describe them. Yet, we still seem to be equally 
as far as ever from this settled state of affairs with reference 
- to the limits of species. Nay, looking to several recent sub- 
VOL. 1I. x 
