550 Metrospective Criticism. 



Dr. Gillies discovered it in 1820. Mr. Tweedie sent roots, in 1832, to Mr. 

 Neill, in whose green-house, at Canonmills, this species flowered in December, 

 1832, and again in March, 1834. Corolla, when expanded, 1§ in. across, 

 white ; marked, from the base of the tube to the tip of the six segments, with 

 six dark lines, which are purplish-green behind, lilac in front. This species 

 yields, when bruised, the most powerful scent of garlic. (Hot. Mag., June.) 



Plants devoid of Leaf and Flower. 



3274. URE"T>0 27927 suaveolens Pers. 



Synonyme : iEcfdium cardui Sowerby, who has given a figure of it in his Coloured Figures of 



English Fungi, iii. t. 398. fig. 5. 

 Early in June, 1883, I observed, in a group of plants of Cnicus arvensis Sm. (Cirsium arvense 

 Lam.), one plant of a yellow brown hue, and more luxuriant than the rest. It was the subject 

 of a parasitic fungus abounding all over it, and with which the luxuriance was doubtless con- 

 nected : and hence this luxuriance may be assumed to have been, like that of the leaves of 

 inemone coronaria (described in IV. 192.), a morbid one. I sent a specimen of the fungus, 

 inhabited Cnicus to Mr. J. D. C. Sowerby, who identified the fungus as the iEcidium cardui above 

 quoted. This specimen, returned by Mr. Sowerby, gave out a very sweet and grateful odour for 

 some months; and, even now (June 11. 1834), may be, on being smelled to, perceived to be fra- 

 grant. On consulting Hort. Brit., the only species which seemed to me likely to be identical 

 with this is the f/redo suaveolens Pers. ; and Mr. Baxter of the Oxford Botanic Garden, to whom 

 a question on its identity has been submitted, has answered it thus : — " Persoon describes his 

 Credo suavfeolens as growing on the leaves of Cnicus arvensis Sm. ; and I find it abundant on 

 that plant in the neighbourhood of Oxford. Mr. Sowerby's JEcidium cardui is said to grow on 

 the leaves of Cnicus pratensis Willd., a plant which is also not very uncommon near Oxford ; 

 but on which, while in a living state, I have not at present observed any species of fungus to be 

 parasitical. May not the word pratensis, in Mr. Sowerby's work, be a misprint for arvensis ? 

 especially as the bit of a leaf represented at t. 398. fig. 5. bears a greater resemblance to the foliage 

 of Cnicus arvensis than it does to that of C. pratensis. Specimens of Z/redo suaveolens of Per- 

 soon, on the leaves of Cnicus arvensis, from this neighbourhood, accompany this letter." — 

 W. Baxter. Jan. 24. 1834. The figures of the leaf in Sowerby's figure does, as Mr. Baxter has 

 remarked, exactly resemble the leaf of C. arvensis, and but little, or not at all, that of C. pra- 

 tensis. It is worthy of remark, that, early in June, 1834 (that is, at the same time as in 1833), 

 I have found the Credo suavfeolens Pers. (JEcidium cardui Sow.) flourishing upon plants of the 

 Cnicus arvensis Sm. in the same group of them as that in which I gathered them last year. This 

 notice may appear in time to induce brother gardeners to gather, this year, specimens for them- 

 selves (as the species is probably of as universal occurrence as the Cnicus arvensis itself), and 

 witness its powerful and pleasant odour. — J. D. June 11. 1834. 



Corrections. 



Zappama nodiflora 2 rosea, in p. 176. insert " 2 " before rosea. On May 1. we saw a stock of plants of 

 this interesting miniature ornament of the garden in Mr. Knight's nursery, King's Road, Chelsea. 



Triteleia, in p. 178. (Treis, three, teleios, perfect ; six stamens are produced in each flower, but only three 

 of the six bear perfect anthers.) 



Art. VI. Retrospective Criticism. 



The magnificent plant of Hovea Celsi, exhibited at the Metropolitan 

 Flower Show, April 16., and said by us (p. 235.) to be sent by Mr. Harrison 

 of Cheshunt, was, we find, sent by Messrs. Rollison of Tooting. Messrs. 

 Rollison inform us that it was one of that abundant stock of young plants 

 which we noticed in VI. 622. 



Our Notes on Highclere. (p. 258.) — My dear Sir, I have wondered very 

 much why you, in your account of Highclere, p. 258., should state so many 

 untruths, which may be so easily detected. You say that Lord Caernarvon 

 has not laid out more than 20/. on nursery plants during the last twenty years. 

 The fact is, Lord Caernarvon has paid me for nursery plants, in the last four- 

 teen years, more than 160/. The next charge you make is, that more has been 

 charged for American plants by nurserymen, than many gentlemen can afford 

 to give. How or where you conceived such an idea, it is difficult to imagine. 

 Now, my dear Sir, it was easy for you to know that American plants are 

 raised in immense quantities in this country from one end of it to the other, 

 at very low prices, less than half what Mr. Carr of Philadelphia, and other 

 American nurserymen, charge for them. You know also that so many are 

 raised, and by so many people, that it is impossible to sustain an exorbitant 

 price. So much for that. 



Now, the third and last statement which you make is equally devoid of 

 truth ; viz., that nurserymen have multiplied tenfold during the last thirty 

 years. This I deny ; and can prove that a decrease of more than one half 



