■ 



DR. BRITTON AND MR. BRITTEN AND JACKSONIA. 7 



There is no thought expressed in this paragraph which 

 had not presented itself to my mind before I wrote a line 

 upon Jacksonia. All the grounds of possible controyersy 

 which Dr. Britton has thus laid before us had been not 

 only seen, but reasoned upon by me, and the conclusions 

 reached were published by me long since, and still seem the 

 ineyitable ones. 



My 



Britton has given as a 



quotation from Eafinesque is that it is far from being an 

 impartial statement of what that author actually said about 

 the type of his genus. If the one line, on page 352 of the 

 Kepository volume which Dr. Britton cites, had been all, 

 then I grant the necessity of Dr. Britton's conclusion; for 

 there is nothing there to show that Eafinesque had anght 

 save the Linnsean Cleome dodecandra before his mind. But 

 the indubitable fact is that he had not that plant in view, but 

 rather an exclusively American species, to which Michaux had 

 wrongly assigned a Linnsean name. It must be that Dr. 

 Britton's omission of passages in Kafinesque's article which 

 I shall quote was accidental. He can not have intended to 

 suppress evidence. Here is the first clause of the title to 

 the article in which Jacksonia was published : 



"Prospectus of Mr. Eafinesque Schmaltz's two intended 

 Works on North American Botany: the first on the new- 

 Genera and Species of Plants discovered by himself."^ 



This, whoever reads will find to cover all the genera pro- 

 posed on page 352. And, in the body of the article, page 

 350 still, he says that his proposed work shall contain "More 

 particularly all new and undescribed genera and species I 

 have found, or which have been communicated to me during 

 my travels through the United States.'" Hereupon follows a 

 long list of names for new genera, with equivalents given; 

 and after this list another note of explanation that runs thus : 

 "Besides a variety of others I shall re-establish in this work 

 about thirty new genera, from plants already mentioned in 

 authors; but which I have by observation found to disagree 



iMed. Eepo8. (II.), v. 350. 2ibid, 351. 



