We have been always accustomed to refer them to Lili-' 

 acecB, on account of their manifest resemblance to Fritillaria^ 

 and general accordance in other respects ; and we scarcely 

 expected that a different opinion could be entertained, not- 

 withstanding the difference between the calyx and corolla, 

 which seemed to point out a relationship to Commelinece ; all 

 that we have ever considered that circumstance to indicate, 

 was at most a tendency on the part of Liliacece to pass into 

 Commelineae. We find, however, in the last volume of 

 Romer and Schultes' Si/stema Vegetabilium, — a work which, 

 now that it is in the hands of Professor Schultes the younger, 

 has become a most valuable collection of Botanical facts, 

 notwithstanding that it has the misfortune to be arranged, 

 in obedience to the will of the booksellers, according to 

 the obsolete system of Linnaeus. In this most useful work 

 we find Calochortus referred to MelanthacecB. For a long 

 time we were at a loss to know how this singular opinion 

 could have been formed ; and we once thought that it must 

 have arisen from the three parted style which is found both 

 in Calochortus and Cyclobothra. But upon a more atten- 

 tive consideration, we ascertained that the bulbs of all the 

 species were described by Prof. Schultes, who appears to have 

 seen none of them, as solid. The old expression hulbus 

 solidus, which is a contradiction in terms, and which in 

 fact means rhizoma, is employed upon the authority of Mr. 

 Douglas, who inadvertently used in his descriptions the term 

 bulb solid, instead of bidb tunicated ; a technical difference 

 which Mr. Douglas, who was little versed in the minutiae 

 of botanical phraseology, might naturally misunderstand. 

 Now every Botanist must know that this discrepancy, how- 

 ever unimportant it may appear to the uninitiated, does in 

 fact lead to most material errors in judging of affinity : for 

 no Liliaceous plant has, or is likely to have a bulbus solidus ; 

 while it is the common character of Melanthaceae, which are 

 equally hexandrous. We therefore conclude that it is this 

 that has led Professor Schultes to refer the plants to Melan- 

 thaceae, and that, now he has become aware of his error, he 

 will agree with us in referring them, without any doubt, to 

 Liliaceag. 



As this genus is likely to become extensively cultivated, 

 and as collectors will doubtless be o-lad to know where to 



