etrospective Criticism. 461 
* Full many a flower yet born to blush unseen, 
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.” 
Yet, in our researches, some caution is requisite ; for it appears that a race 
of disseminators has arisen, from whose gratuitous labours we are likely to 
have many spurious appendages to our list. (See a late Number of the AZag. 
Nat. Hist.) This practice is not to be recommended, and it is earnestly 
suggested to the individuals who adopt it (and I particularly address my- 
self to the candid and talented writer alluded to in the Magazine), that if 
they should hereafter discover a new and truly indigenous plant, the cir- 
cumstance of their having been thus employed will very much weaken, if it 
does not wholly destroy, the weight of their testimony; for, though full 
credit for intentional veracity may be due to them, and conceded, it may 
yet be doubted whether they be not mistaken in their recollection, or pur- 
posely deceived by other less honest disseminators. Nor will the incon- 
venience be entirely removed by a timely avowal of the interpolation, since 
no botanist can hereafter investigate the districts so contaminated without 
having the discouraging idea that whatever he sees there, new or interesting, 
has perhaps been officiously conveyed thither by others: and when it is 
considered how desirable it is that a perfect and authentic catalogue of our 
indigenous plants should exist in print (and in no former age have such 
favourable and adequate opportunities been possessed as in the pesca 
surely no true botanist will hereafter lend himself to a practice so replete 
with mischief. — W. Wilson. Warrington, June, 1830. 
Apocynum androsemifolium. — In mentioning The Journal of a Naturalist, 
a work from which I have derived much instruction and amusement, I 
regret that there is any part which can afford opportunity for condemnation ; 
but the account (p. 80. Ist edit.) and engraving of that curious plant, the 
Apécynum androsemifolium (Fly-catching Dog’s-bane), is so very incor- 
rect, that I cannot think the author can ever have seen a specimen, much 
less evamined one.- From having frequently examined the plant, I can 
recommend to the notice of your readers the description of it in p. 280. 
vol. viii. of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine, as being very accurate and clear. 
It is accompanied also with a correct representation of the flower. — W.C. 
T. Jan. 28. 1830. 
Errata. — Pelargonium phze‘um (p. 169.), and P. licidum and colum- 
binum (p.174.), should be Geranium p.,1., and c. : there is no British species 
of Pelargonium. — R. Sweet. Pomona Place, March 29. 1830. 
Evibphorum pubéscens. — At p. 241. of Vol. 1. there is a figure of this 
species, which is altogether erroneous. The stem is perfectly smooth, not 
being as it is represented; and the rough downiness of the peduncles is 
scarcely visible without a magnifier, while in the figure they are bristled 
stronger than a thistle. The reviewer of the Flora of Berwick hints a doubt 
of its distinctness from E. polystachyon, but the species are totally different 
both in characters and habit. The figure of the latter in English Botany is 
very good. — George Johnston. Berwick upon Tweed, March 17. 1830. 
Blue-bells of Scotland. — In the Flora of Berwick I have said that the 
Campanula rotundifolia is the blue-bell of Scotland, an assertion ques- 
tioned by my too favourable reviewer (Vol. II. p. 236.), who believes the 
Scilla nutans to be the flower thus distinguished. I have spent nearly the 
whole of the days of my life in the extreme north of England, and in the 
south of Scotland, and until science had made known to me another and a 
less interesting nomenclature, I knew the Campanula only as the blue-bell 
of my native land; and a subsequent enquiry has satisfied me that I am 
correct. These heart-stirring and endearing names, I regret to add, are 
fast lapsing to oblivion, and, unless the local florist will commemorate them 
in his pages, our children will read our pastoral poets without knowledge of 
the objects described. Sir W. Scott, in the passage cited against me, 
HH 3 
