150 Botany. 
cuctions it is not to be wondered at that observers placed in isolated situ- 
ations, and reduced to the comparatively narrow compass of their own 
resources, should occasionally describe, as new, individuals which haye been 
long known, or promulgate, as discoveries, facts with which naturalists have 
been long familiarised. It is to be hoped that the fear of incurring this 
censure will not discourage any from communicating to the world what 
they may deem new or interesting; for it is certainly better to err in so doing, 
than to run the risk of losing what may perhaps be found of the first 
importance to the progress of ne atural knowledge. ‘The great extent of nature 
and limited resources will always be deemed a sufficient apology for mis- 
takes of the kind alluded to, by the candid and considerate ; those natural- 
ists, however, who live in the midst of splendid collections and exten- 
sive libraries, and have the means of direct communication with persons 
skilled in the particular branch of the science to which any discovery may 
appertain, can hardly expect to meet with the same indulgence. These 
reflections apply to the description given by the before-named very zealous 
and intelligent naturalist of an animal discovered in the Caribbean Seas, and 
to which he has given the name of Polybrachion, without being aware of 
its having been previously observed and described as a species of Porpita 
viz. P. glandifera (’ncyc. Meth. Pers.), and of which a very characteristic 
figure is given in the volume of plates (pl. 90. fig. 6, 7.). We have gained, 
however, a very beautiful and exact representation of this animal from the 
pencil of the reverend gentleman, and some additional and important facts 
relating to its mode of propagation. (See Zool. Journ., vol.ii. p. 403. and 
pl. 10. ) — X. 
Art. Ul. Botany. 
BorantcaL Frauds.— Sir, Mr. Dovaston (Vol. IL p. 400.) very honestly 
confesses the botanical fraud (if I may be allowed the expression without 
offence ) which he has committed, in having naturalised Antirrhinum Cym- 
balaria in a variety of wild situations, thus. candidly making this public ac- 
knowledgment, lest botanists should be misled in imagining this elegant little 
foreigner to be truly a native. Similar frauds equally innocent have been 
practised, | apprehend, to a larger extent in various parts of the country. 
{ was informed, some years ago, that a party of botanists, making a tour in 
the neighbourhood of Inglebor ough, carried with them the seeds of several 
exotics, such as they thought likely to become naturalised in this country, 
and scattered them in suitable situations during their progress. A list (as 
I was informed) of the species thus attempted — to be introduced was kept, 
to serve as a record of the fact. The only plant I recollect as being men- 
tioned to me was Scilla campanulata. Should this be observed by any 
future botanist in the above apparently wild situation, he must not therefore 
too hastily conclude it to be a native, since, in all probability, its claim to 
British origin rests on no better grounds than Mr. Dovaston’s Antirrhinum. 
Dr. Sibthorp, in the preface to his Fora Oxoniénsis, speaks of several sus- 
picious natives, of which he is doubtful whether or not to enumerate them 
as indigenous, “ Sub ipsis denique muris urbis rariores stirpes oculis oc- 
currunt, quae tamen, cum peregrina sint facie, dubito utrum inter indigenas 
enumerandee Site 6. 2, Hieracium cerinthdides *, Senecionis species, et 
Cymbalaria,” &c. + This “ Senecionis species,” I eee no doubt, is S. squa- 
* Query, Hieracium amplexicatle ? which grows on walls at Oxford, and, 
being of foreign origin, is, probably, no more than “ horti rejectamentum.” 
7 “« Under the very city walls rarer plants meet our eyes, but, from their 
foreign aspect, I doubt whether they should be enumerated as natives; for 
example, Hierdcium cerinthdides, a species of Senécio, and Cymbalaria,” &c. 
