168 Analysis of Scientific Books and Memoirs. 



to see the number of species so much increased ; for we feel assured, 

 that, unless new species are made upon very substantial grounds, the 

 difficulty attending their study is made greater to the young Botanist. 

 We know from our own experience among the native mountains of 

 many of them, that they are exceedingly liable to vary. Our old friend 

 S. hypnoides, which we used to know well, and to find on almost every 

 hill in England, Ireland, and Scotland, is now hardly to be recognized 

 in any station. If we show a specimen to one friend, it is named 

 S. hirta, (which, except in the presence of its lateral shoots, borders very 

 closely upon S. cwspitosa), to another it appears to be S. iiffinis, to a third 

 S. platypetala, to a fourth S. denudata, to a fifth S. clongella, to a sixth 

 5. leptophylla, to a seventh S. Icete-virens. Indeed, the learned author 

 himself, in his concluding observations upon the genus says, " I have 

 thus endeavoured * to furnish the British Botanist with materials, at least, 

 towards the History of this most difficult genus, correcting my own mis- 

 takes, but not presuming to reject, or to decide upon any thing I have not 

 examined. It cannot but be remarked that many of the specific characters 

 are two indefinite and not discriminative, the cause of which is that we 

 are not, as yet, well acquainted with what constitutes a species in Saxifra- 

 ga, nor how to define their differences." In this latter opinion we most 

 cordially agree ; but then we differ as to what our mode of acting should 

 be on this confession. If the character of one presumed new species be so 

 slight as not to be capable of clear definition or discrimination, it is surely 

 better to include it under that already established species to which it bears 

 the closest affinity, and to notice it among its varieties. These, however, 

 are mere matters of opinion, and we have perhaps dwelt too much upon 

 tbem." Haworth and Don have laboured greatly among the Saxifrages, 

 and the latter has well described many new and excellent Exotic species. 

 Sincerely do we wish that Count Sternberg might be induced to continue 



" In our Flora Scotica, note, at p. 13. P. l, a passage runs thus : " Since the a- 

 bove remarks were written upon this most intricate family of the Saxifrages, it 

 was with much satisfaction that I saw, in the article on Saxifraga in Rces' Cyclopae- 

 dia, that Sir James Smith has, with that degree of candour which so often accom- 

 panies his writings," &c With much concern we learn that the words here printed 

 in italics were understood to imply that Sir James Smith was not always candid in 

 his writings, an assertion which it was so far from being our intention to make, 

 that we really meant to pay a high compliment to our valued friend. We are, how- 

 ever, quite sensible of our mistake, and of the construction which may be put up- 

 on it, and can only say in our defence that the passage in question was, like too many 

 other parts of the Flora Scotica, written hastily, and overlooked in our own correction 

 of the press. If the erroneous idea is removed from the minds of our readers, no 

 harm will have ensued from this unintentional mistake. On our parts it has led to 

 a long-continued correspondence with Sir James Smith, which has but increased the 

 regard that we have always felt for him, which we believe to be mutual, and has 

 given us unquestionable proof that his public character is only equalled by his pri- 

 vate virtues. 



