eras at - y 
¢ A \ ; 
\ . 
1808.] Monthly Botanical Report. 503 
@ccur in Ray’s Synopsis; Dr. Smith dares not to separate the genus Muscari from Hyacins 
thus, because he thinks they are naturally united by H. ramanus; which he says is truly mos 
Mopetalous, and therefore nota Scilla, to which genus it has been referred by Gawler, in Cure 
tis’s Botanical Magazine. But the Doctor does not seem to obferve that Mr. Gawler asserts 
that all the three genera, to which he has elsewhere added Ornithogalum, are naturally the 
sanie, and the division entirely artificial, but nevertheless convenient : the Corolla, it may be 
observed, is really monopetalous in ail the four genera. 
Rumex palustris, considered by preceding authors as a variety of R. maritimas L. 
Lamium incisum of Willdenow, dissectum of Withering; formerly considered by Smith hime 
self as a variety of L. purpureum. 
Cheiranthus frutiewlosus. The common wild Wall-fower, found upon most of the decayed 
castles, monasteries, and Jarge walls through the island; and by the generality of Botanists 
thought to be the Cheiranthus Cdciri of Linnzus. If these plants be really distinct, there can 
be nodoubt but that the synonyms in the species Plantarum of Linnzus’s first variety («) 
belong to the species here figured. 
For the month of October we find only three phenogamons plants. 
Cheirantbus incanus, never before supposed to be a native of Britain, but found by Mr, 
Turner and Mr, W. Borrer, on the cliffs near Hastings, growing on inaccessible rocky ledgess 
and such being precisely its natural station on the coast, in the south of Europe, it is here 
presumed it may be wild with ns. 
Salix amygdalina, and decipiens. We are thandful for a continuation of this very difficuls 
enus. : 
f Neither our limits, nor the weakness of our eye-sight, will allow us to enter into any dise 
quisition on the minute cryptogamous plants, beyond the order of Filices. F 
The fortieth number of the Parapisus Lon pINENSIS, contains Adina glcbiffora, a new 
genus, the characters of which are here given with Mr. Salisbury’s usual botanical skill,’ It 
may be thought to be too nearly allied to Nauclea of Gertner. It isa native of China, whence 
it was undesignedly imported into this country, springing up from the earth sent with some 
plants from Canton to Mr. Greville. 
Leucadendrum grandiflorum. Native specimens of this beautiful species are said by Mr, 
‘Salisbury to be preserved in the Banksian Herbarium for Protea, conocarpa 5 to which itis:ale 
lowed to be nearly allied 
Hookera pulchelle ( Brodiea of Dr; Smith). Mr? Salisbury has availed himself of this oppor~ 
tunity to correct a double error, which, it should appear from this account, the Doctor has 
‘fallen into, that of considering the pjant as triandrous, and mistaking the segments of the al- 
‘ternate bifid filaments, for somany jnternal petals. As this name of Hookera was published 
in the Paradisus, before Dr. Smith thought proper to apply that of Brodiea to the same 
plant, in hanour of his friend Mr. Brodie, in a paper read before the Linnean society, as has 
been mentioned in a formerReport, the author here complains of this and ocher multiplied acts 
of injustice towards him, all of which be says that he forgives; we wish he could forget them 
also, and cease to take hold of every occasion of bringing them-forward. 
We learn not altogether without surprize, that Dr. Smith has taken offence at a late Re» 
port, in which this subject is rather jocularly mentioned; nothing could be farther from our 
intentions than expressing any disrespect tothe Doctor, for whom we have ever professed and 
felt a regard; nor do we think that an appearance of want of candour towards him cat be de~ 
tected in our writings by any one unconnected with either party. We must acknowledge, 
owever, that if we have included both in our general censure, it has been from the pen of 
Mr. Salisbury alone that the perpetuation of this disagreement has been brought under our 
* review, nething from Dr. Smith having come before us, except his letter to the editor of this 
Magazine, (vide vol. 25. p. 191,) which, if not written altogether in the spirit of reconcili+ 
ation, appears to us to he at least void of asperity. But we sincerely hope never ‘to have oc» 
casion to mention this unpleasant subject again, and heartily join with Dr. Smith in bis self 
' congratulations, that his rival has no further power to injure him. With respect to the name 
of Hookera, or Brodiea, we shall not attempt to decide which will be likely to be handed 
_ down to posterity ; nor whether-either of the three candidates have as yet merited by their 
atin by which alone the public can judge, this wxicum BoTANICORUM premium. 
é 
Hy - . 
his, however, we can venture towioretel, that whatever name may be recorded with the 
plant, the application to its prototype will sink into oblition, unless he shall have raised a 
_ Monument to himself by his writings. . 
ov t is with pleasure we announce the progress of Mr, Turner’s Fucr, which proceeds and 
wires aequirit eunds. It is a beautiful, 4 scientific, and we believe a very accurate publication 5 
indeed we know of no botanist so capable of carrying on a work of this kind, and we congra= 
_ tulate the public that it has fallen into so good hands, We consider it as the great triumph 
of modern times, that the cultivation of every branch of Natural History, indeed of know 
in general, is diffused among our commercial mep, aad net, as formerly, nearly confined 
f ee, ye hi of medicine, and a few divines, 
- 
Tre 
