PREAMBLE. / 



annul it by not deeming the first application 

 given to a proper Generic group. When cor- 

 rect principles shall always guide Botanists, 

 this will be avoided and rectified. I find that 

 my G. Eusteralis 359 is a Dysophyla of 

 Blume, but yet a Sub Genus at least, differing 

 as Eiihemus does from Lycopus. 



While Lindley was so severe on Spatih, he 

 lias admitted the whole labors of Bentham on 

 the Labiate, an admirable rectification of 

 108 Genera to be sure; but exactly similar to 

 that of Spach : The Genera of Bentham are 

 often based on very minute characters likewise, 

 and yet he has left many Genera, Salvia, 

 Teucrium, Phlomis, Sideritis, Marrubium, 

 &c, hardly rectified, as I will easily prove in 

 this Work. He has omitted my Empedoclia 

 of 1810, also Cephaloma and JBonamia of 

 Neeker : my G. Vleckia of 1808 unknown to 

 Bentham or Lindley, although republished by 

 Desvaux, is exactly their Lophanthus, a name 

 of Linneus and Adanson, different from that of 

 Forster. (Thus the Microstylis of Nuttal 1818 

 is my Acroanthes of 1808, published by Mit- 

 chell and since by Desvaux in their works) — 

 while the divisions of the family are actually ab- 

 surd, being based on the direction of the Sta- 

 mens ! and many Genera of Adanson, Mench, 

 &c. are omited- 



When Lindley shall take the trouble to con- 

 sult my Works, as does Decandole, he will I 

 hope rectify all such oversights. 



I might proceed to state how loose and inac- 

 cusate are the characters of many natural fam- 

 ilies of Lindley. I have already stated that 

 they are often like those of Adanson & Neeker 

 without definite evident common characters 



