142 CYNTHIA DANDELION. THE DANDELION CYNTHIA. 



botanical science at that early period, the Dandelion should have 

 sueeested itself. How lonQ^ the name Dandelion has been con- 

 nected with it does not appear, though as Troxiinon Dandalion 

 it is described in Persoon's works about 1807. But its supposed 

 relationship to the Dandelion seems to have been noted by 

 Gronovius, who made it Tragopogon, which is a closely allied 

 genus, and the one to which our common garden salsify belongs. 

 The description which one of our earliest collectors (Clayton) 

 sent to Gronovius is so illustrative of the general accuracy of 

 the botanists of those days, that we may do well to refer to it here : 

 He says : " The flower is large, showy, of a sulphur color, the 

 stalk striate; leaves long, narrow, toothed, with soft spines set" 

 on the margins; the outer florets expand while the inner ones 

 remain closed (see our Fig. 5), the calyx then assuming a coni- 

 cal figure (see Fig. 6) ; seeds like the purple-flowered Tragopo- 

 gon but smaller (Fig. 3)," many of these points, as we see, cor- 

 responding ' exacdy with our plate. At this early period, how- 

 ever, botanical relationships were not understood as they are 

 now, especially the relationships of the composite order, and our 

 plant, after being thought a Tragopogon, a Troximon, a Krigia, 

 and Hyoseris, was given a separate place of its own, as Cynthia, 

 by David Don, in the " New Edinburgh Philosophical Society's 

 Proceedings," in 1829, and it has remained Cynthia ever since. 

 Professor Gray, in his " Manual," says Cynthia is " perhaps from 

 Mount Cynthus," and Professor Wood that " Cynthia is one of 

 the names of Diana." It might be as well to explain to the 

 general reader that Cynthius is one of the ancient names given 

 to Apollo, and Cynthia to Diana, and that Mount Cynthus was 

 dedicated to both deities, so that the derivations of these two 

 authors are seen to be more in accord than they might appear, 

 in the absence of this explanation. David Don, who named the 

 genus, was very fond of giving classical names to plants, and 

 often, as in this case, without any apparent reason for their asso- 

 ciation with the genera he selected for them. While on the 

 subject of names, it may be remarked that the common name, 



