Retrospective Criticism. 121 



Canker in Auriculas. — Information as to the cause, prevention, and cure 

 of this disease is much wanted by — Carolus. Camberwell, July, 1827. 



Plants of .Rheum australe, Ribes (an Arabic word, not Ribus) hybri- 

 dum, and the Flat Peach of China are wanted by — J. Y. Yarmouth, 

 July 27. 



Has salt ever been applied as a thin top dressing immediately after sowing 

 (before the seed-leaves appear), as a preventive to the destructive havoc 

 of the Chrysomela nemorum serata of Marsham, the turnip fleas (they 

 certainly leap much oftener than fly), or, as they are generally called, the 

 turnip flies ? — Umbratus. May 10. 1827. 



Art. VII. Retrospective Criticism. ' 



Changing Botanical Names. — Sir, — At vol. ii. p. 422. of your Gardener's 

 Magazine, you have proposed changing the name of Wisteria chinensis to 

 W. Consequa.M«, an alteration which I think not advisable or likely to be 

 adopted. Nor is it proper that it should, as certainly every name first pub- 

 lished that is not absolutely wrong, or that would not tend to mislead, 

 should be adopted. If there is not some such rule to go by, there will be 

 no end to the change of names. I am much pleased with Decandolle for 

 adopting this plan, in restoring original names instead of those which have 

 been in use for a considerable time, and only changing names when several 

 plants have been confused under the same name, so that it would be diffi- 

 cult to make out the original one. In this case he has adopted W. chinen- 

 sis, for the present plant, first published in the Botanical Magazine, rather 

 than sinensis published since in the Botanical Register. Your Chinese friend 

 Consequa, I should presume, would also be better pleased with having some 

 plant named after him, which had not been already published. I am not 

 averse to the dividing genera where it is needful, but I certainly am of opi- 

 nion that the original specific names should be always adopted, and that 

 generic names should not be changed, except where the genus is divided. 

 I therefore agree with Sprengel in his Systema Vegetabilium, Link in his 

 Enumeratio Plantarum, and Sweet in his Hortus Britannicus, in adopting 

 Belis of Salisbury for the Pinus lanceolata, instead of Cunninghamia, pro- 

 posed by Brown, most probably out of opposition to Salisbury, and not 

 from any fear of its ever being confused with J?ellis, as he pretends, as that 

 is not likely : or, if such is the case, Brown's genus Caleya must certainly 

 be altered to give way to Cale«, an old established genus ; Dahlia, from 

 sounding like Dalea, and many other alterations that I could point out, 

 must take place from the same cause. But I am afraid I have been troubling 

 you with an uninteresting criticism. Should it attain a place, I shall most 

 probably be induced to continue my criticisms occasionally, as I am a friend 

 to the science of botany and gardening generally, though so humble an in- 

 dividual as — A Female Critic. Kent Roud, Jidy 29. 1827. 



We are happy to have called forth the remarks of our female friend, 

 and should wish to hear from her frequently. We cannot give up the spe- 

 cific name Consequarca ; but as it is the first we ever presumed to propose, 

 if A F. C. and our other friends will adopt it, we promise never again to 

 attempt another botanical alteration, which, as mere horticulturists, we 

 acknowledge we are not legitimately entitled to do. — Cond. 



The Warrington Gooseberry, according to Mr. Saul, has been praised by 

 us (Gard. Mag., vol. ii. p. 74.) beyond its merits, as compared with the 

 large show gooseberries. To convince us of our error, our indefatigable 



