Mi\ Andeuson's Alviiograph of the Genus P<£unia. 285 



juinlly rcsponsil)lc : it is possible, I think, that new varieties may 

 be discovered, and that future investigation may add to the refc" 

 renees wliieh ne have given; tlie work cannot be considered as 

 complete, whilst any synonym of those authors, who described 

 what they actually observed, remains unapplied ; suel) additions, 

 if they be thought worthy of notice, shall l)e given hereafter in a 

 supplemental paper, should health and leisure be allowed me. 



The first volume of M. Do Candolle's Systemu ISiaturalc Regni 

 l^egetuhitis, which has just arrived from Paris, contains the genus 

 Pajonia ; and as that work must, from its peculiar merit and from 

 the great repute of its author, be constantly referred to as autho- 

 rity, it will perhaps be considered not entirely useless to compare 

 the species of our paper with those of M. De Can'doUe, and to 

 endeavour to reconcile the points of apparent difference. He has 

 not arranged his species in the order which has been adopted in ouc 

 paper, but placed them in the following succession : 1. Mout/in; 

 2. Corallina ; 3. Officinalis ; 4. Peregrina ; 5. Lobata ; 6. Daurica ; 

 T. yilliifioya; H. Tataiica ; 9-Hiimilis; 10. ^1 noma la ; 11. Ili/brida ; 

 12. Tcniii/olia ; 13. Laciniata. 



In Moutan lie has made the double one the type of his species> 

 and under that has referred to our two double varieties; placing 

 P. jjapavaacea as the second variety, and suggesting the possibi- 

 lity that it may be a distinct species. 



Of P. alhijlora he makes two varieties only; his «, judging by 

 the reference to Andr. Repos. 64, is our P. alhijlora a. vestalis ; his 

 ^. florc roaco is our P.albijiuva y. Tatarica, as I conclude from 

 liis reference ta Par. Land. 78, though the plant there figured 

 is described as having " petahi pallide rosea," whilst that with 

 " petahi rosea" therein noticed as another variety, is either our 

 P. ulbijlora e. rnbcsccns, or one which, if ever it did exist in our 

 gardens, is now lost. M. De Candolle's reference to the Uortiis 



Kcucnsisy 



