BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 79 
trinervia, and not until the time when Smith published the first 
volumes of his ‘Flora Britannica,’ do we find any variation. 
Smith cites the following botanists as using his name, but they all 
witness against him; Linneus, Hudson, Withering, Relhan, 
Sibthorp, Abbot, Curtis, Willdenow, Allioni, and Oeder. Smith 
gave no hint of his tampering with the Linnean name, and 
so Withering was led astray in his subsequent editions, then 
plying some remarks of.Lindley, which were directed to giving, not 
altering, commemorative names, has chosen to transmute the 
specific name into Brownii as above. This act is hard to reconcile 
new e by a new name, one previously pub- 
lished, even by himself.” To ascribe the genitive of the noun, 
Brownii to any antecedent writer is positively misleading; the 
name should stand as Georgia Browniana, C. Muell., or G. Brownt, 
Braithw., if it must be altered, although I cannot see the slightest 
necessity for any such meddling with it. 
have not done with the eryptogamists te For instance, 
ed i 
type, and sink B. pomiformis as a variety. If acute discrimination 
achieve no better result than this, I should lament its mischievous 
he raised it to specific rank, under the style of B. indusiata. Now 
it is perfectly clear that Bridel christened his species indusiata, 
spite of this, w i forth, “ B. virid 
Brid.” Surely it is an unhealthy and morbid activity to mis- 
represent earlier writers thus; common sense recoils 
As if to supply me with additional matter for comment, the. 
