301 



The imcertaiiities respecting these three species of CEnanthe had 

 been brought into a narrow compass by the papers of Mr. Ball, Mr. 

 Babington and myself; each of whom had successively elucidated 

 some of the points previously obscure ; although each in turn had still 

 left some unsettled questions to be answered by others. Mr. Lees 

 now comes forward at the eleventh hour, when the doubts are nearly 

 all solved and settled, and contrives to write the longest paper hitherto 

 printed on the subject; so much easier is it, to write a diffuse paper, 

 than to give really useful information in succinct terms. In that paper 

 Mr. Lees writes as if almost nothing had been done by others— states 

 over again many things previously made public — commits several 

 notable blunders — and adds very little indeed to our previous stock 

 of real knowledge. Mr. Babington or Mr. Ball would have told in a 

 single page all that was new and worth recording in the paper referred 

 to. Surely, it could not be held necessary for Mr. Lees to restate 

 those circumstances which had already been more accurately or more 

 fully stated by preceding writers. And it was not simply unnecessary, 

 but highly mischievous, to put forth unqualified statements, in the 

 character of general truths, notwithstanding that facts previously on 

 record, and certified on sufficient authority, proved some of those 

 statements to be quite incorrect, and showed that others of them 

 could be true only to a limited extent. Taking the three former 

 papers (those of Ball, Babington and Watson), in connexion, the 

 most important points left uncertain may be thus put into the form of 

 queries : 



L — Is the peucedanifolia of Smith an identical species with the 

 peucedanifolia of Pollich ? — or, with the silaifolia of Bieberstein ? — or, 

 a third species distinct from both ? 



2. — What is the form of the leaflets of the truly radical leaves of 

 Smith's peucedanifolia ? — and, what is the form of its mature fruit ? 



Nothing whatever is attempted by Mr. Lees, in the way of answer 

 to these queries, or the nomenclature of the species. He has a pas- 

 sing allusion to the names, in a foot-note on page 356, but this allu- 

 sion is penned in such terms, as almost unavoidably to force us upon 

 a supposition that Mr. Lees has yet to learn the recognized principles 

 of botanical nomenclature. He thinks it " preferable to retain " the 

 name of " peucedanifolia of Pollich," and yet he assigns no reason for 

 a preference, which has a weight of authority against it vastly greater 

 than any in favour of it. According to existing knowledge, and the 

 established rules of nomenclature, the question may be held now al- 

 most entirely reduced to a choice between " silaifolia " and " Sraithii." 



