187Y.] 



AND HOB TIG UL TUB IS T. 



91 



go quite out of its way to ascribe unworthy mo- 

 tives to an eminent botanist not cited, or in any 

 manner alluded to in my article. As silence 

 with rej^ard to these may be construed as an 

 admis.sion on my part of the truth of the Rural's 

 representations, I ask space for a brief reply, 

 with which I drop the subject. 



In my former note I quoted what Loudon 

 says (in his "Trees and Shrubs of Britain," Vol. 

 2, p. 986), in reference to the name Hortensia. 

 Respecting this the Rural says : " Now for what 

 Loudon says in the work quoted. He gives 

 seven names or synonyms of this plant, and 

 then tells the story which ' T ' repeats, about how 

 the name Hortensia came to be one of the num- 

 ber, and its bec^iiiing common in France; but 

 he is very careful not to decide which in the correct 

 one." 



The italics are mine ; for so remarkable a 

 statement defeerves the distinction. The asser- 

 tion is here distinctly made, tiiat in giving seven 

 different names for the plant, Loudon does not 

 indicate which of the seven he prefers, and 

 adopts as the correct name, but is very careful 

 not to do so. Those familiar with botanical de- 

 scriptions know that the author, when there are 

 several names, places the one he approves and 

 adopts Hrst, and the others follow as synonyms ; 

 and that it is further the custom to make the 

 approved name more conspicuous by putting it in 

 a different type from the others. Loudon was a 

 " very careful " man, and in this case he was not 

 only " very careful " to " decide " which among 

 several names is the " correct one " by placing it 

 Jirst, but he further emphasises this decision by 

 placing H. Hortensia in italics, while all the dis- 

 carded names are in Roman, or in ordinary 

 type. The Rural refers me to another work by 

 Loudon, his "Encyclopaedia of Plants," where it 

 says " he gives the correct name as hortensis." I 

 admit that in the " Encyclopaedia," publislied in 

 1829, he does give the name as " hortensis," but 

 Loudon's labors extended over many years, and 

 as he was a man who grew wiser as he grew 

 older, he did not continue the errors of his ear- 

 lier works in his later ones. Tiie fact that he 

 did, in his " Trees and Shrubs," in 1838, discard 

 " hortensis " and adopt Hortensia, at the same 

 time giving his reasons for accepting the latter, 

 indicates a desire to be right, which may be 

 commended as an example worthy of imitation. 

 The Rural cites Donn, who, it tells us, 

 "strangely enough, quotes for liis authority in 

 retaniing the name hortensis, Augustin Pyramus 



De Candolle, who wa.H a celebrated Swiss botan- 

 ist, and the father of the present Alphonse De 

 Candolle, referred to above as the man who 

 tickles French vanity by restoring the name of 

 Hortensia." This reference " above " to Al- 

 phonse De Candolle, is perhaps the most re- 

 markable thing in the Rural's remarkable arti- 

 cle. It says : " Prof. De Candolle, the younger, 

 doubtless in consideration of this universal sen- 

 timent [admiration for Hortense] of his country- 

 men, retains this name [Hortensia] in his work, 

 and Dr. Gray, from a similar consideration for 

 his friend, De C, follows this great botanical au- 

 thority: thus an error is perpetuated by these 

 two authorities, and backed up by ' T ' in the Gar- 

 dener's Monthly." Our wonder that Alphonse De 

 Candolle should be charged with being influ- 

 enced by unworthy motives in adopting a scien- 

 tific name, is only equalled by that at seeing 

 Prof. Gray charged with following any one — his 

 position being usually that of a leader. 



This is probably the first time that the scientific 

 integrity of Ali»h. De. Candolle or Asa Gray was 

 ever called in question, and the /Jura/, in making 

 these charges, assumes a position more conspic- 

 uous than enviable. If any one thing relating 

 to this charge can be more strange than another, 

 it is the perfectly gratuitous character of the 

 attack, for I am quite unable to see why Alph. 

 De Candolle is cited at all, as I made no refer- 

 ence to him whatever in my article. It is true 

 that I did, in support of my position, refer the 

 Rural to " any botanical work of acknowledged 

 authority, as De Candolle's for Europe, and 

 Gray's for America;" had I intended Alph. De 

 Candolle, I should have said so. The Rural does 

 not seem to be aware that it is the custom among 

 botanists to speak of the father simply as De 

 Candolle, and to abbreviate it as DC; while 

 they call the son A. or Alph. De Candolle, and 

 abbreviate his name as A. DC. The work of 

 De Candolle's I referred to was the " Prodromus," 

 which consists of 21 vols., running through half 

 a century, and which the Rural assumes is all 

 by the younger De Candolle. If it will turn to 

 the fourth volume, it will find on the title page, 

 "Anctore Aug. Pyramo De Candolle," and that 

 the date is 1830. By turning to p. 15, it will 

 find H. Hortensia, which, being the work of the 

 father, leaves the charges against the son with- 

 out any foundation worth speaking of, and the 

 Rural's indignation at the desire of the son to 

 "tickle French vanity," seems like a waste of 

 powder. If Donn quoted De Candolle as author- 



