18' IM'RODl ( TION, 



alike and too short, why not say Ophishoa and 

 Poagris? I have constantly insisted for the 

 purity of tasteful nomenclature ; but regret to 

 see it oft neglected by the very best Botan- 

 ists. Good names ought to be either classical 

 or full of meaning; the best even to describe the 

 main essential character. 



Another source of mistakes arises from blun- 

 ders in Orthography, or errors of the press, co- 

 pied inadvertently. Thus it is now well ascer- 

 tained that these gave rise to the Prunella read 

 Brunella, Befaria read Bejaria, Amsonia 

 read Ansonia^ Galardia read Gaillardia, Gu- 

 alterla read Gaultiera, Pentstemon read Pen- 

 tostemotif Sarracen'a read Sarazinia^ Scilla 

 read Skllla, Diclytra read Dielytra, Marsilea 

 read Marsiglia, &c. 



A new general Pinax of Names, like that of 

 Bauhin of old, is very much wanted ; but who 

 shall undertake the herculeun task? It might 

 be done however for Genera at least, and the 

 admirable table of old generic names collected 

 by Adanson, might serve for model. The gen- 

 eric synonymy of Decandole and Sprengel are 

 but incomplete attempts. This surabondance 

 of names arises from the timid or unskilful Bot- 

 anists, who are not able to refer Plants to their 

 proper Genus, nor able to make New Genera 

 of those that disagree. It will never cease till 

 skilful Botanists alone meddle with Names. 



The compilers, translators, editors and com- 

 mentators of the Linnean School have for 60 

 years past, often tried to keep Botany nearly at 

 a stand, or impeded its progress. They have 

 often neglected to avail themselves of the works, 

 researches and discoNcries of those who were 

 not strict Linneists. They neglected for a long 



