1031 



be glad to be informed, in order that I may take an early opportunity 

 of correcting my error." — p. 3, 1st edition. 



Surely there is no want of candour here ; whatever instances of it 

 the editor may fancy he has perceived in other parts of Mr. Newman's 

 writings ! 



In concluding these remarks, penned " more in sorrow than in an- 

 ger," we must express our regret that the editor of the 'London Jour- 

 nal of Botany ' should have taken a step which we cannot but look 

 upon as one unworthy the position he holds among botanists. We 

 considered it due to the editor of the Journal to give insertion in our 

 pages to the whole of his strictures, and no less due to our readers 

 and to ourselves, to make an attempt to clear up certain passages in 

 the extracts, which might tend to convey erroneous impressions; and 

 having done this, we bid farewell to an unpleasant task. 



Art. CCXXVI. — Proceedings of Societies. 



BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 



June 7, 1844. — J. Reynolds, Esq., Treasurer, in the chair. 



Specimens of Qilnanthe peucedanifolia and CE. pimpinelloides were 

 exhibited, accompanied by notices of their distinctive characters and 

 habitats ; by Edwin Lees, Esq., F.L.S. Much uncertainty and con- 

 fusion having prevailed among British authors and distributors, in 

 regard to the distinctions between these species, the views of Mr. L,, 

 founded on good opportunities for observation, are deserving of parti- 

 cular attention. The following condensed abstract will explain the 

 conclusions formed by this botanist. 



First.~QE. peucedanifolia always grows in wet places, and is found 

 both by salt and fresh water ; while OS. pimpinelloides is found in 

 dry ground only. 



Secondly. — The characters derived from the form of the radical 

 leaves, and the presence or absence of an involucrum, will not prove 

 sufficient to prevent confusion ; but the rounded tubercles upon the 

 roots of GE. pimpinelloides, will readily serve to distinguish that spe- 

 cies from QE. peucedanifolia, in which the tubercles are elongate and 

 sessile. 



Thirdly. — There is some difference in the fruit of the two species, 

 though the materials in the possession of Mr. L. are not sufficient to 

 state this with precision and certainty. 



