THE NOMENCLATURE OF NYMPH^A, ETC. 7 



Salisbury published in the ' Annals of Botany ' (ii. 69 — 76) a 

 " Description of the Natural Order of Nymphaeese," in which he 

 divided the Linnean genus Nymphcea into two. For one of these 

 he retained the Linnean name ; the other he styled Castalia. The 

 volume is dated 1806; but internal evidence shows that this first 

 part was issued in 1805, In the same year William Hooker 

 published in the ' Paradisus ' the plate lettered Castalia magnifica 

 and dated Oct. 1, to which Salisbury supplied the letterpress. 



In 1808 (or 1809), Smith (Fl. Graec. Prodr. i. 361) adopted 

 Salisbury's division of the Linnean genus Nymphcea, but did not 

 follow Salisbury's nomenclature. He restricts the name Nymphaa 

 to Salisbury's Castalia; while he bestows upon the yellow-flowered 

 species, for which Salisbury retained the name Nymphcea, a new 

 name, Nuphar. He cites Castalia as a synonym of Nymphcea and 

 says (under Nuphar) , " Has, Nymphaeam albam et luteam Linnaei, 

 characterum ope in Eng. Bot. et Fl. Brit, evulgatorum ascitis insuper 

 nectariis, in duo genera feliciter disposuit D. Salisbury ; at minus 

 bene Nymph^am antiquorum veram, nomine, Castalia, ad novem et 

 plane abnormem etymologiam formato, distinxit."* 



The title-page of the ■ Prodromus ' is dated 1806 ; but, as Mr. 

 Greene points out (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, Dec, 1887, p. 257), the 

 last part, containing Nuphar, did not appear until the end of 1808, 

 or, more likely, the beginning of 1809. This is clear from the 

 correspondence which took place between Goodenough and Smith 

 regarding the name, extending from Nov. 17th to Dec. 14th of 

 the former year.f Smith had already recognized the correctness of 

 Salisbury's division of Nymphcea: "I believe," he says, " Mr. 

 Salisbury's Castalia is well separated from Nymphcea" I ; and he 

 writes to Goodenough (without, it must be admitted, displaying any 

 animus against Salisbury personally), stating his wish to retain 

 Nymphcea for the showy-flowered species, and to adopt Blephara for 

 the yellow-flowered ones : he gives classical reasons for this course, 

 which need not be referred to here. Goodenough, who certainly 

 came as near hating Salisbury as a bishop could well do,§ promptly 

 settles Smith's scruples. " You must and you do reject Salisbury's 

 Castalia upon irrefragable [i.e., on classical] ground U": and he 

 adds, by way of quieting any qualms of conscience which Smith 

 may have had, "In your Introduction, you have pledged yourself, 

 not to the name Castalia, but merely to the separation from 



Nymphcea. 19 



Planchon (Ann. Sc. Nat. 3rd ser. xix. 59) demolishes the 

 position of Smith and Goodenough in adopting the name Nuphar 



generis, itaq 



uterum totum 

 1 Ralisb in Ann 



576—582 



J Introd. to Botany (1807), 385. 



§ See Smith's * Correspondence,' i. 557, 575, 578, 587. 



|| In this latter case, L. C. Bichard's name NymphosantJios, proposed by 

 him (Anal, du fruit, p. 68 (May, 1808) for the yellow-flowered species, in ignor- 

 ance that Salisbury had already separated them, would take precedence of 



Nuphar. 



