Mr. BnowN, on the ProteacccB of .Tiissieii. 4S 



And lastly, Having acquired more perfect materials and per- 

 ceiving the insufficiency of his characters, he united them to- 

 gether, thus ending exactly where he commenced. 



But, as in this he has been universally followed for nearly forty 

 years, Protea can no longer be considered as more strongly as- 

 sociated with any one species of the genus than another ; and 

 therefore this name so familiar to botanists, if the necessity of 

 again subdividing the genus be allowed, ought certainly to 

 be given to that part which is best known, and which contains 

 the greatest number of published species, especially if the nan)e 

 be at least as applicable to this as to any other subdivision : now 

 this part unquestionably is the Lepidocarpodendron of Boer- 

 haave, the Protea of the first edition of the Genera Plantarum 

 and Classes Plantarum, and of the present Essay. 



The question respecting the application of the name Leiica- 

 dendron is reducible to a smaller compass. Mr. Salisbury is 

 aware that the Linnaean character of the genus is only ap- 

 plicable to Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave; and therefore, 

 consistently with the reasons which determined him in his appli- 

 cation of the name Protea, Leucadendron ought to have been 

 retained for that which he has called Erodendrum in Paradisus 

 Londinensis ; and this it. seems he would have done, had it not 

 been ditferently used by Plukenet, whom he professes to follow 

 in this respect. But as rejecting Linnaean names when accom- 

 panied by characters, for those of Plukenet who never published 

 a single character, is somewhat unusual, it must be supposed to 

 have arisen from the latter author's more appropriate use of this 

 significant name, while it may also be presumed that Linnaeus's 

 application of it is wholly unsuitable ; and it is at least to 

 be expected that in his own application he is consistent with 

 Plukenet, whom \\e means to follow, 



G 2 To 



