190 PITTONIA. 



4 



suppression of the other one did not meet with the expected 

 approval, and ten years afterwards he saw for himself that it 

 must needs be restored. At this juncture, to save the latest 

 Nidt(dUa—t\iB,t of his own making and naming — intact as to 

 the name he had given it, he seems to find an earlier name in 

 the Callirhoe of Nuttall, for the Nuttallia of Barton. I am 

 very apprehensive that he erred as to the date of the publi- 

 cation of the genus Callirhoe. I suspect that he followed a 

 usage not uncommon at that time, of reckoning the date of 

 the reading of a paper at an academic meeting as the date of 

 publication. Nuttall's Callirhoe was read in March, 1822 ; 

 but this, while a year earlier than the publication of Bartons 

 Nuttallia^ is not a date of publication ; and just what may 

 be the date of the second volume of the Philadelphia Academy 

 Journal, looks very uncertain. The volume bears on its title 

 page — what must be very wide of the truth — 1821, the date 

 when the first, not the last of its articles was read in the 

 Academy. The volume was reviewed as new, in LinntBa as 

 late as 1823 ; and its actual publication may perhaps be 

 found to have taken place several years later than 1823, the 

 year in which Barton's Nidtallia appeared. 1 have little or 

 no doubt that a careful and thorough search into the date of 

 publieatioa of Callirhoe will prove it to be later than Barton s 

 Nidtallia. The continued use of the latter name for the 

 malvaceous genus, by Hooker, Lindley and even Nuttall 

 himself is of itself a circutnstanoe indicatin*^ strongly its 



o 



J 



probable priority over Callirhoe; and Nidtallia will prob- 

 ably revert from the drupaceous, as far as to the malvaceous 

 genus, if no farther. 



But the trouble with Nidtallia is far from ending here. 

 The loasaceous Bartonia, long supported by the best authori- 

 ties and everywhere accepted for many years, was at length 

 found incapable of retaining its name. It reverted, hy 

 priority, to that geutianaceous genus of Malilenberg wlucli 

 has since claimed it without dispute. Rafinesque discovered 

 this fact, insisted upon the restoration of that earliest name 

 in place of Ceataarella, Michx. Ha then according to the 



