and the Pyrcfiees, in 1825. 253 



bercd, it may be subject of regret that there are none worthy to 

 succeed them *. 



The face of vegetation has undergone considerable changes 

 since I came to Montpellier. At one time, the garriques were 

 yellow with Genista scorpius, and the meadows white with Nar- 

 cissi : now, the garriques are blue in some parts with Aphyllan- 

 thes monspeliensis, and silvery in others with Stipa tortilis : the 

 Cistus albidus makes some places appear red, while C. monspe- 

 liensis makes others white. The principal genera here in spring 

 are Fedia, Helianthemum, Medicago, Trifolium, Linum, and 

 Euphorbia. In summer the Cisti, and in autumn the Centauries, 

 abound : of this last genus, I understand there are upwards of 

 thirty-five species in the neighbourhood. Of the genus Biseu- 

 tella, so common in many parts of Italy, there are here very 

 few species : the principal is B. ambigua, and B. saxatilis /3, 

 DC -f*. Lathyrus, Astragalus^ Vicia, and other genera of Le- 

 guminoscB, are tolerably abundant. Of Polygala, I do not re- 

 collect of seeing any others than P. vulgaris (which bears no 

 very great resemblance to the British one of that name), and 

 P. monspeliaca. The latter, though I understand it to be rare 

 about Montpellier, is common in some parts of the property of 



• We are rather disposed to believe that Mr Arnott underrates the botani- 

 cal accuracy of the gardens of this country ; and that, on the whole, a greater 

 degree of precision as to nomenclature prevails in the principal gardens of 

 Britain, than in similar establishments on the Continent. We hope to take 

 up the subject in a future number ; in which the gardens of England, France 

 and Germany will be compared and contrasted. — Neither do we see cause to 

 despair of the future progress of scientific botany in this country.— Edit. 



-}• These two are only to be distinguished from each other by the asperities 

 on the silicule. The most complete enumeration of the species of this beauti- 

 ful genus is in De Candolle's Prodromus ; but I doubt if all be equally valid. 

 The characters in the first and last sections that De CandoUe has made of first 

 consequence, is the presence or absence of asperities on the silicule ; and were 

 this of less importance, a very curious combination of species would take place. 

 I have endeavoured to arrange the following clavis analytica^ so as to present 

 this to the view : 



Sect. I. Calyces basi longi bisaccati. 



Silicul. disco Isevibus (in stylum coeuntibus), - . B. erigenfolia. 



Silicul. disco Hn stylum non/ caule hispido, - - B. hispida. 



punctis ele--< coeuntibus, ( caule villoso, - - B. cichorifolia. 



vatis scabris, (in stylum coeuntibus, - ~ - B. aurkulata. 



