74 MONOGRAPH 



having found it himself. Meantime Gaertner 

 having proved that the chief hnnean distinction 

 of separate stamina was wrong, since the plant 

 he described as the same, bad syngenesious 

 stamina : the Genus became fixed by the strik- 

 ing character of plumose seeds, and well dis- 

 tinguished by it from Eupatorlum; but he wrong- 

 ly called it CrltoTiia, mistaking it for a Crito- 

 nia of Brown, which Smith states to be the 

 Eupatorium dalea^ with scabrous pappus. All 

 the sp. oi Eupatorium have more or less such 

 a scabrous or dentate pappus. The alternate 

 leaves are no character of the Kuhnia since I 

 have found a species with opposite leaves, and 

 the very Kuhnia of Linneus has sometimes 

 such leaves below. 



The plant of Gaertner tab. 174, who only 

 figured the seeds, has been made since a second 

 Sp. of the Genus, and called Kuhnia critonia ; 

 but I shall show by Wildenow and others pres- 

 ently, that it is by no means positive that he 

 was mistaken, since the original Kuhnia of 

 Linneus, offers sometimes on the same plant 

 the characters of both species ; Ventenat and 

 Persoon unite both again. 



Sir James Smith regreted that these plants 

 were not introduced as yet in the English Gar- 

 dens. In Loudon Cyclopedia of plants they 

 are not mentioned as introduced in 1829, being 

 omitted. Yet in the second edition of Sweet 

 Hortus Brittanicus, published in 1830, I find 3 

 species mentioned as introduced, the K, eupa- 

 torioides in 1812, K. critonia in 1816, and K, 

 rosmarinifolia in 1827. But they must be 

 very scarce, and they had not been figured yet 

 in the magazines^ nor elucidated by English 

 Botanists. 



