from the Verbesinez ; and it was Linneus’s mark of distinction between 
his orders Polygamia superflua and Polygamia frustranea. Yet the 
resemblance between the several species of Dahlia is, in other respects, 
so great, that it has never occurred to any botanist, not even to Cassini, 
who availed himself of every perceptible modification to make genera 
in Composite, to propose their separation; nor could it be done with- 
out laying aside all idea of natural genera. ~ 
The Dahlias are all natives of the mountainous districts of Mexico, 
where the present species had probably been discovered some years 
ago, as it appears to have long been cultivated in the Botanic Garden 
of the City of Mexico. It may possibly be the same as the Dahlia gigan- 
tea, mentioned by Bullock in his List of Plants procured from that es- 
tablishment, but no mention of it is to be found in the Nova Genera of 
Humboldt and Kunth, nor in any of the writings of Spanish botanists, 
to whom the plants of the Mexican garden were usually transmitted. 
G 
INTRODUCTION; WHERE GRowN; CuLturE. The Dahlia excelsa 
was first introduced to this country about the year 1830, in a manner 
somewhat unintentional. Messrs. Loddiges of Hackney perceiving 
that some thick stakes which were used to protect a basket of plants, 
received by them from Mexico, showed signs of life, planted them in 
the open ground, where they grew to the height of ten feet in the first 
season, but were destroyed in the subsequent winter. The plant was 
again imported both by roots and cuttings, in 1834, by William Bates, 
Esq. who presented it to Charles Tayleure, Esq. of Toxteth Park, near 
Liverpool, by whom it was liberally distributed to the Liverpool Bot- 
anic Garden, and to Mr. Skirving of Walton nursery, near Liver- 
pool. From the latter admirable and liberally-conducted establish- 
ment, a plant two feet high was obtained by George Ellins, Esq. of 
Rigby Hall, Worcestershire, and planted in the border of his conserva- 
tory, in the spring of 1837. In November of the same year it had at- 
tained the height of twelve feet, and produced a handsome corymb of 
flowers at the summit of the stem, in the manner represented by the 
~ largest of the two miniature outline sketches in our plate. From one 
of these flowers our drawing and description was made. This hand- 
some plant, 12 feet high, wholly devoid of side shoots, but with its mag 
nificent foliage, spreading five feet from side to side and displaying a 
single spreading crown of flowers, was highly attractive. The very 
handsome style of growth of this individual plant does not, however, 
