V. PAPAVEK RHOEAS. 95 



to be minded for the present, until we are well acquainted 

 with the better bred circles. I don't know, for instance, 

 whether I shall call the Burnet ' Grass-rose, 5 or put it out 

 of court for having no petals ; but it certainly shall not 

 be called rosaceous ; and ray first point will be to make 

 6 ure of my pupils having a clear idea of the central and 

 unquestionable forms of thistle, grass, or rose, and assign- 

 ing to them pure Latin, and pretty English, names, clas- 

 sical, if possible ; and at least intelligible and decorous. 



8. I return to our present special question, then, What 

 is a poppy ? and return also to a book I gave away long 

 ago, and have just begged back again, Dr. Lindley's 

 Ladies' Botany.' For without at all looking upon ladies 

 as inferior beings, I dimly hope that what Dr. Lindley 

 considers likely to be intelligible to them, may be also 

 clear to their very humble servant. 



The poppies, I find, (page 19, vol. i.) differ from crow- 

 feet in being of a stupi tying instead of a burning nature, 

 and in generally having two sepals and twice two petals ; 

 " but as some poppies have three sepals, and twice three 

 petals, the number of these parts is not sufficiently con- 

 stant to form an essential mark." Yes, I know that, for I 

 found a superb six-petaled poppy, spotted like a cistus, 

 the other day in a friend's garden. But ther , what 

 makes it a poppy still ? That it is of a stupifying nature, 

 and itself so stupid that it does not know how many 

 petals it should have, is surely not enough distinction ? 



9. Returning to Lindley, and working the matter far- 



