of very rare occurrence, for no notice is taken of it in Messrs. 

 Hooker and Ai-nott's valuable catalogue of Chilian plants, nor do I 

 see for what species those authors, who I presume must have had all 

 Mr. Cuming's collection, could have mistaken it. The only new 

 species they mention is (E. mendocinensis, which was not found by 

 Ml-. Cuming, and which seems from the description to be a very dif- 

 ferent plant. It is no doubt improbable that the same species should 

 be found in Chile and in Florida, but I am still at a loss to discover 

 the difference between (E. concinna and CE. humifusa. 



With regard to the observations I felt called upon to make upon 

 the absurdity and mischievousness of the endless changes of names 

 introduced into Botany by some Botanical writers, I cannot but feel 

 upon consideration that it was wrong in me to assign particular motives 

 to Mr. Spach for his proceedings, however much 1 might be disposed 

 to ridicule or condemn them. As it is not my nature to be either 

 uncharitable or unjust, I do not scruple to take this opportunity of 

 recalling that part of the remarks, in which I assigned Mr. Spach 

 a place in the school of Schreber; but in stating this I by no means 

 wish to be understood as withdrawing one word of the remainder of 

 the criticism. On the contrary I regard such a case as that which 

 elicited my animadversions to be one of those which there is no hope 

 of curing without the application of the actual cautery. 



