Botanical Society of Edinburgh. 423 



Museum of the College of Surgeons, aud cannot see that it has even 

 a title to generic distinction. Naturalists seem at all times to have 

 been prone to assign generic rank to whatever was mysterious or 

 difficult to classify, and I can in no other way account for this species 

 being made a genus. 



It will be seen that my endeavour has been rather to ascertain and 

 demonstrate whatever natural degrees of relationship exist among the 

 species of this family, than to compose a system for mere convenience 

 of reference ; but so far from that being any hindrance to the prac- 

 tical adoption of my views, I think that in arranging the specimens 

 in a museum, or the materials of a work, it will generally be fovmd 

 more convenient to be able to dispose the members of a natural group 

 in whatever order may suit our immediate object, than to be com- 

 pelled to place them in accordance with the stringent laws of a purely 

 analytical method ; and that for the purpose of referring a new species 

 to its true location, when we have not the means of obserAdng all 

 characters that may be necessary for the determination of a series of 

 natural affinities, the external characters which can be assigned to a 

 group when its limits are well made out, will be foxmd sufficient ; 

 while on the other hand, not only the external characters, but some- 

 times even those of anatomical structure, will, in a group which has 

 not been previously subjected to a full and careful examination, be as 

 the letters of an unknown language, often leading into error and 

 confusion. 



With regard to nomenclature, I have used such names as I find 

 most generally adopted by later naturalists who have given attention to 

 this subject, generally taking, where I had a choice, such as appeared 

 to have been of earliest date ; and as I only enumerate such species 

 as I have seen, I must not be considered, although I have omitted a 

 few which appear to be varieties, as rejecting all that are left out. 



BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH. 



Thursday, 1 0th of July, 1851. 



Dr. Balfour exhibited specimens of the following monstrosities : — 



1 . An Arum with a double spathe, the second spathe being alter- 

 nate with the first. The spadix at the lower end showed the appear- 

 ance of the adhesion of a second spadix. This specimen was from 

 the garden of Dr. Neill, Cannonmills Cottage. 



2. A monstrosity of Antirrhinum majus, presenting a regular flower 

 formed by five personate petals with gibbous bases. 



3. Monstrosity of white Digitalis showing the terminal floret com- 

 posed of several united, and expanding before the other flowers in 

 the raceme. There was thus a mixed inflorescence, partly definite 

 and partly indefinite. 



A letter was read from Mr. Wyville Thomson, Lecturer on Botany, 

 King's College, Aberdeen, \\\ which he states : — " A few days ago, 

 walking along Dee-side about seven mUes above Aberdeen, I was much 

 surprised to see Prunus spinosa covered with large handsome fruit 



