454 
names of the genus G/auctum, I confess I have been 
tempted to follow Gertner, in preferring precision, 
elegance, and truth, to barbarism, confusion, and 
error. The name of the common Wall-flower is not 
changed by me, but it is so called by Linnzus. On 
this subject, however, I entirely agree with you in 
principle ; otherwise I might have changed half the 
names in the book. 
I differed from M. de Lamarck in his ideas of 
Juncus acutus and maritimus, because analogy led 
me to judge the panicle must be terminal in one if 
in the other; but perhaps I may be mistaken, and 
have been led to think the two species more akin 
than they are, because of other authors having con- 
founded them. I am sorry to say I fear I have 
added to the confusion concerning the Dover Cam- 
pion, for Miller’s pretendedly authentic specimen 
deceived me. Original ones in the British Mu- 
seum, gathered at Dover, are a plant I do not 
know, and which is now said not to be found at 
Dover. We must wait in hopes of its being one 
day recovered, as was the case with Ligusticum 
Cornubiense. 
I should claim no seoriate even if I had corrected 
myself by the help of a much less able botanist 
than Mr. Curtis, on the subject of Cerastium te- 
trandrum. I have already found out my error in 
confounding two species under Z7rifolium filiforme, 
and shall correct that, and such further errors as 
may be detected, in an appendix to the last volume. 
I am, Sir, 
Your obliged and very humble Servant, 
J. E. Smira. 
