14< Proposal to name Trees and Shrubs in Nurseries, 



All we know is, that the advancement of science is not the object, foi" science 

 Mr. Rivers avowedly sets at defiance. 



We have now, we trust, proved that Mr. Rivers has " confused " the genus 

 Robin2«, instead of throwing any light upon it ; and we can assure our readers 

 that he has done the same to an equal or greater extent with every genus 

 introduced into his catalogue. 



It would take too much time to review all Mr. Rivers's lists, but we shall 

 say a few words on his manner of treating the genus Cratae^gus, because we 

 have pointed out the confusion which exists in that genus in nurserymen's 

 catalogues, in our article above referred to. Of this genus Mr. Rivers 

 enumerates forty-two kinds ; and, as in the case of Jcacia and indeed, of all the 

 other genera in his catalogue, he makes no distinction between species and 

 varieties. Of his forty-two kinds no fewer than fourteen are varieties of the 

 common hawthorn, some with Latin and others with English names ; and 

 these are interspersed throughout the list, so that they excite no suspicion of 

 their being, with two or three exceptions, nearly all the same tree under 

 different appellations. The following quotation will show the manner in 

 which the English and Latin names of the different kinds of hawthorn are 

 jumbled together : — 



" Crimson or new scarlet, double pink, double white, Glastonbury, scarlet, 

 upright (stricta), weeping, yellow-berried, celsiana, laciniata, lutescens, pecti- 

 nata, pterifolia." 



The whole of the genera in the catalogue are treated in the same manner, 

 and English names and scientific names, species and varieties, are mixed up 

 together in a manner that makes one laugh at the idea of the catalogue being 

 intended to promote clearness and order. In short, if Mr. Rivers had 

 entitled his catalogue " An Attempt to perpetuate the present Confusion which 

 exists in the Nomenclature of Trees and Shrubs in Nurserymen's Catalogues, 

 and to puzzle intending Purchasers," it would have given a much more 

 correct idea of his performance than the title he has affixed to it. It is true 

 that there is a class of men, to which Mr.Rivers seems to belong, who resolutely 

 shut their minds against all improvements ; descendants of those botanists 

 who, in the days of Linnaeus, reprobated the great Swede for his inno- 

 vations and love of change, and of those politicians who, in the time of 

 Elizabeth, fancied that the state would be ruined by Sir Hugh Myddelton's 

 plan of bringing water to our houses by pipes, instead of water-carriers. 

 Such men always have been, and always will be, behind their times ; but 

 mankind will not wait for them, and if they do not advance, they will 

 be left behind. But, even supposing Mr. Rivers and his followers should 

 adopt any particular set of names, new or old, that they may fancy, whei'e 

 would have been the harm of distinguishing between species and varieties ? 

 And, in short, in what respect would doing this have rendered the catalogue 

 less " popular " or less " useful ? " 



We shall now attempt to show the effect Mr. Rivers's catalogue is likely to 

 have on an intending purchaser. Suppose any person, having already a 

 common RobimVu Pseud^v^cacia in his grounds, wishes to purchase another 

 plant of the same genus, but, for the sake of variety, as different from the one 

 he has as possible ; at all events, a different species. How, we would ask, is 

 he to do this from Mr. Rivers's catalogue ? It is evident from the list, that 

 the chances are two to one that he purchases, not a distinct species, but a 

 variety of what he already has j or, supposing any person to wish to select 

 half a dozen of different robinias, surely it would be more desirable that he 

 should have one of each species, than that he should have them all, or nearly 

 all, varieties of one species, which, if he follows Mr. Rivers's list, it is 

 extremely probable will be the case. 



Even a worse case might, however, occur than this. Supposing a person 

 " loving his garden," but not having " leisure to refer to botanical works," 

 who* had the common Roblnifl, and who, misled by Mr. Rivers's list into a 

 belief that Acacia was the botanical name of the genus, were to order Ackcm 



