10 THE NOMENCLATURE OF NYMPHiEA, ETC. 



He adds : " Though I have followed others in quoting the 

 above synonyms, I am not absolutely certain that the Hungarian 

 plant here taken up is the same with the Egyptian Lotus"; and 

 L)e Candolle (Syst. i. 54), when establishing this as a distinct 

 species, refers to this note of Salisbury's. 



Salisbury's second species in the ' Paradisus ' is : 



Castalia sacra Salisb. = " Nymphaa Lotus Marquis of Blandf. in 



Bot. Bep. n. 391, cum ic. Nymphaa pubescens Willd. Sp. PI. 

 v. 2, p. 1154. Nymphaa Lotus Roxb. MSS. Ambel Bheed. 

 Ital. Mai. v. 11, p. 51, f. 26." 



It would seem that three plants were included in C. mystica of 

 Ann. Bot., and that the names of these should stand as follows : — * 



0. mystica Salisb. = (7. mystica Salisb. Ann. Bot. and ■ Paradisus' 



(in part) ; Nymphaa Lotus L., et auct. plur. (the Egyptian and 

 African plant). 



C. sacra Salisb. = C. mystica Salisb. Ann. Bot. (in part); Nymphaa 



pubescens Willd. ; N. Lotas Roxb. Bep. 391 (the Indian plant). 



C. thermalis = C. mystica Salisb. Ann. Bot. and 'Paradisus' (in 



part) ; Nymphaa thermalis DC. ; N. Lotas Waldst. & Kit. (the 



isus' (ii 



Kit. ah 



Hungarian plant). 



writers 



recognised the priority of Salisbury's names, or have at least 

 quoted them as synonyms, boldly faced the necessities of the case 

 and restored them, our present inconvenience would have been 

 largely obviated. S. F. Gray's attempt to settle the matter is worth 

 a note : he seems to have been anxious to recognise Salisbury's 

 work, and at the same time to avoid changing Smith's name; so he 

 boldly writes (Nat. Arr. Brit. PI. ii. 706), " Nuphar, B. A. Salis- 

 bury," with the species, " Nuphar luteum Salisbury, Ann. Bot. 2, 

 69," and •' Nuphar minima, Salisbury, Ann. Bot. 2, 69." The latter 

 species was not even known to the author to whom Gray attributes it ! 

 If the date of the publication of Anneslea (Andr. Roxb., not of 

 Wallich) given by Pfeiffer (Nomencl. p. 198) were correct, Salisbury's 

 genus Emyale would have to give place to it. But Pfeiffer's date, 

 1804, is certainly wrong ; Andrews's plate (t. 618) is not dated, 

 but t. 627 bears date Dec. 1, 1810: Euryale dates from 1805. 

 Roxburgh's name existed in MS. before this — at least so we may 

 assume from Salisbury's remark (Parad. t. 64), "In the Annals of 

 Botany I have called a plant, not before described by any botanist, 

 Euryale, being ignorant that the friends of Lord Viscount Valentia 

 in Hindostan had selected it to perpetuate his memory." He goes 

 on to say — "I am happy therefore now to offer him one from the 

 same country," and establishes his genus Anneslia, the restitution 

 of which will lead to further revolutions ; for not only must this 

 supersede Bentham's Callmndra established for the same plant 



npha* 



Imgd. Bat. ii. 248), unites the three under 



