604 
should, I think, be paid to practical men, and ladies 
and gardeners, who have been accustomed to pro- 
nounce so. I give you my opinion and my reasons ; 
and therefore, if you enter upon this part of your 
work, you will judge for yourself. 
I do not see that you are called upon to give the 
etymology of the generic and specific names: it 
would open into dispute, and take off the mind 
from your main object, botanical determination. 
These things must, I think, be left generally to 
scholars. 
Yours, 
SAMUEL CaRLISLE. 
Sir J. E. Smith to the Bishop of Carlisle. 
My dear Lord, Norwich, March 13, 1822. 
I derive, as usual, great assistance and encou- 
ragement from your Lordship’s instructive letter. 
I think I may be spared explanations of generic 
names, except such as are new to British readers. 
As toaccents, your Lordship’s plan is excellent: 
I well remember your telling me about it,—but per- 
haps it is more than I want. Common English 
readers, not wanting to make Latin verses, would 
never understand magnus, and palustris, &c. It 
will be enough, I apprehend, to put a’ over the 
syllable on which the accent is to be laid. This I 
can do easily in most instances ; and when I am 
puzzled, I know whom to consult. 
DeCandolle has introduced a new term for the 
