74 MONOGRAPH 



having found it himself. Meantime Gaertnef 

 having proved that the chief linnean distinction 

 of separate stamina was wrong, since the plant 

 he described as the same, bad syngenesious 

 stamina : the Genus became fixed by the strik- 

 ing character of plumose seeds, and well dis- 

 tinguished by it from Eupatorium; but he wrong- 

 ly called it Critonia, mistaking it for a Crito- 

 nia of Brown, which Smith states to be the 

 Eupatorium dalea, with scabrous pappus. All 

 the sp. of Eupatorium have more or less such 

 a scabrous or dentate pappus. The alternate 

 leaves are no character of the Kuhnia since I 

 have found a species with opposite leaves, and 

 the very Kuhnia of Linneus has sometimes 

 such leaves below. 



The plant of Gaertner tab. 174, who only 

 figured the seeds, has been made since a second 

 Sp. of the Genus, and called Kuhnia critonia ; 

 but I shall show by Wildenow and others pres- 

 ently, that it is by no means positive that he 

 was mistaken, since the original Kuhnia of 

 Linneus, offers sometimes on the same plant 

 the characters of both species ; Ventenat and 

 Persoon unite both again. 



Sir James Smith regreted that these plants 

 were not introduced as yet in the English Gar- 

 dens. In Loudon Cyclopedia of plants they 

 are not mentioned as introduced in 1829, being 

 omitted. Yet in the second edition of Sweet 

 Hortus Brittanicus, published in 1830, 1 find 3 

 species mentioned as introduced, the JRT. eupa- 

 torioides in 1812, K. critonia in 1816, and K. 

 rosmarinifolia in 1827. But they must be 

 very scarce, and they had not been figured yet 

 in the magazines, nor elucidated by English 

 Botanists. 



