722 Retrospective Criticism. 



Register may be, — that is, who pockets the profits arising from this precious 

 morsel, this twelvepenny worth of index, miscalled appendix, — I do not 

 know. The only name (besides that of the bookseller) which appears on 

 the titlepage of the Register is that of Mr. Sydenham Edwards. To most 

 of the descriptive portions of the work, in the latter volumes at least, the 

 initials J. L. are affixed, which are, I believe, universally understood to 

 signify that eminent botanist Mr. Lindley. I am far from meaning to 

 charge either of these gentlemen with being guilty of so mean a transaction 

 as the one in question ; but, as their names appear in connection with the 

 work, I think they owe it to then* own characters to use their influence in 

 the proper quarter towards the discontinuance of the practice, or publicly 

 to avow, through the medium of your pages, that they have no participation 

 in the fraud. Yours, &c. — A Subscriber to the Botanical Register. Aug. 6. 

 1830. 



Doctor Hooker's British Flora. — When I procured the British Flora by 

 Dr. Hooker, I expected that I should find in it such information as is 

 essential to be known in order to ascertain the species of plants, disen- 

 cumbered in a great measure of all unnecessary remarks. One of the 

 first plants that I picked up, after having had this work, was Gentiana 

 campestris, which I did not know at that time. When I found that my 

 plant had four stamens and one pistil (the stigmas being united), I sought 

 for a description of it in Tetrandria Monogynia ; but in vain. I then 

 showed it to a competent botanist, who told me that it was a Gentiana. 

 I turned over all the Gentidnce in the British Flora, and could not find that 

 my plant agreed with any of them, because it had only four stamens. 

 However, after long puzzling, I at last found, from its general character, that 

 it was Gentiana campestris ; but, at the same time, I felt assured that it must 

 be a strange variety, as the British Flora does not say a word about any of 

 the Gentidnce having only four stamens ; while, of course, from the situa- 

 tion in which I found that genus, I thought that all its species ought to 

 have five stamens. I happened afterwards to meet with Sir J. E. Smith's 

 English Flora, in which I found it remarked of the genus Gentiana, 

 "filaments as many as the segments" and of G> campestris, " corolla four- 

 cleft." How soon did these few words awake me out of the fond dream of 

 having discovered a strange variety of G. campestris, into which I had been 

 thrown by the hasty Scotchman ! [Dr. Hooker is an Englishman.] This 

 is but a specimen of the many blunders in the British Flora calculated to 

 puzzle students. — J.Jones. Llanfair, Montgomeryshire, September, 1830. 



The Florist's Guide. — Sir, Having been much pleased with the improve- 

 ment of some of the last Numbers of the Florist's Guide, I was greatly 

 disappointed to see that it will shortly be discontinued. It certainly cannot 

 be treating Mr. Sweet well, that, after the pains he has taken to make 

 himself acquainted with florist's flowers, and just when he began to edit the 

 work well, for want of sufficient support he is obliged to drop it. It may 

 be a question whether it is not owing to the trickery of florists ; for figuring 

 the flowers certainly tends to establish their names, and prevent the same 

 flower being sold under three or four different names, as is too often the 

 case. We hear of florists' societies in almost all parts of the kingdom, and 

 it is a disgrace to them to let the work fall to the ground ; for why should 

 not floriculture have a periodical work, as well as any other department of 

 gardening? I still hope that florists will more generally come forward, and 

 induce Mr. Sweet to continue his work, by rendering him that support which 

 will enable him so to do. I am, Sir, yours, &c. — An Amateur. 



Mr. Main's Villa and Cottage Florist's Directory. — Sir, In two instances, 

 I think, you have been good enough to allow authors to make replies to 

 their reviewers in your Magazine : I have to beg the same privilege in a few 

 lines. Tingling (not smarting, I assure you) under the " castigation " of 

 your reviewer of my little book on Floriculture, I feel, notwithstanding, 

 quite disposed to return my best thanks for the very civil terms in which 



