lOO GEOEGE LAWSON 



Nymphcea, as he called them, was ackuowlodgod by his ooutemporaries to be due to the 

 sagacity of Salisbury ; (2)' that the name Castalia was at first adopted by Woodville aud 

 "Wood, in Kees's Cyclopœdia, aud by other authors, under protest as to the reason lor 

 its choice, with correction of the needless changes which Salisbury made in specific 

 ai^pellations, and restoration of the already established ones ; and (3) that the generic 

 names proposed subsequently by Smith have been preferred, not from any feeling of antag- 

 onism to Salisbury, or desire to lessen his merit, but for reasons that were freely expressed 

 at the time, and held weight subsequently with botanists, so long as every other con- 

 sideration was not swept away by the now all-prevailing priority idea. Even now, 

 some who incline to accept the name Castalia, in itself iiuobjectionable, in deference to 

 the desire to give preference to priority, may not appreciate Mr. Salisbiiry's reasons 

 for its selection, which no doubt formed the real obtacle to its adoption at a time when 

 descriptive suitability and propriety of sentiment were thought to be of consequence. 



Mr. Britten says : " In 1808 (or 1809) Smith (Fl. Cxrœc. Prodr., I, p. 361) adopted 

 Salisbury's division of the Linnsean genus Nymphœa, biit did not follow Salisbury's 

 nomenclature. He restricts the name Nymphœa to Salisbury's Castalia, while he bestows 

 upon the yellow-flowered species, for which Salisbury retained the name Nymphœa, a 

 new name Nuphar^ It is shown that the part of the Prodromus containing Nuphar did 

 not appear until the end of 1808, or, more likely, the beginning of 1809. 



Mr. Britten, unlike Prof G-reene, acquits Smith from " displaying any animus against 

 Salisbury personally." He indeed points out Smith's recognition of the correctness of 

 Salisbury's dlAasion of Nymphœa, in the " Introduction to Botany," to Avhich Mr. Joseph 

 F. James has also called attention, in Torrey Bulletin, Feb. 1888. "I believe," says 

 Smith, "Mr. Salisbury's Castalia is well separated from Nymphœa." Smith wrote to Bishop 

 Goodenough stating his wish to retain iVym^/ftm for the showy-floAvered species, and to 

 adopt Blephara for the yelloAV-lloAvered ones. Britten quotes Groodeuough's reply : " You 

 must and you do reject Salisbury's Castalia upon irrefragable [here Britten interjects, 'i.e., 

 classical'] grounds." Not being able to refer to the Smith correspondence at present, I 

 cannot ascertain how far this interpolation is justifiable, but apparently the real ground 

 was notorious at the time and did not need reference in correspondence betAveen Grood- 

 euough and Smith. That Salisbury's nomenclature, Aveighted AAàth so many needless 

 changes, should not have been adopted with alacrity by his (contemporaries will not 

 surprise anyone acc[uainted Avith tlie spirit and literature of the time. Salisbury's antag- 

 onism to certain Linnsean ideas, and his attempts to belittle Linnaeus and repudiate 

 Linnsean names, his constant desire to change specific names (at that time regarded as 

 more inviolable than generic ones), and the special objection to Castalia, not as a name, but 

 on account of the analogy Avith Avhich he sought to justify it, and Avhich brought doAvn 

 upon him the rebuke of the authors of the article in Rees's Cyclopœdia, are quite sufficient 

 to explain why Salisbury's propos(»d nomenclature AA-^as not at once adopted, and to shoAV 

 that the responsibility did not lie Avith Smith, but Avith the botanists of the time, who, 

 then few in number, AA^ere more disposed to consult and act in concert in such matters 

 than is the custom, or is indeed practicable, now. What could be more frank than Sir 

 James's acknowledgment of Salisbury's merits, as expressed in the c^uotation already 

 cited from his Introduction to Botany, aud in the article Nymphéa in Rees's Cyclopœdia 

 • (XXV.) After noticing the A^arying views of Liunœus at different times as to the 



