50 HOOKERA V. BRODIZA. 
April 19th of the same year, and that he was quite aware of 
Salisbury’s prior publication is shown by the fact that he cites his 
Hookera as a synonym. 
Probably the universal acceptance of Smith’s name is due to 
the fact that about the same time he established the well-known 
genus of mosses, Hookeria*; and the moran pleted of the two names 
may have been considered too close. But, if so, Hookeria and not 
stent must go to the wall: for the ra ag was published more 
an es before the paper establishing the former was re 
rene sth, 1 08). 
It is not, t es to be wondered at that complet should express 
himself strongly as to Smith’s conduct in the ter ; and, what- 
them, it is impossible not to feel that he had grounds for 80 
expressing himself. Accordingly, in the ‘ Paradisus,’ t. 117, when 
describing H. pulchella more fully, he states that H. coronaria me 
been named by him in June, 1807, and published in March, 1808; 
and then proceeds to animadvert on Smith as follows :— 
‘* When Dr. J. E. Smith came to London in May following, at 
a meeting of the Linnean Society he read the ree character of - 
a Moss, which he thought proper to name Hookeria, after an 
secuedtons cryptogamist ; and at a A ienarg meeting he read his 
~ generic character of my Hookera; made up from dried specimens 
awi gi him by Mr. Menzies, naming it Brodiea, — 
after one of his pee Notwithstanding what he then said — 
respecting the affinity of these two plants, such was the impression oe 
made upon several of the members present by the which 
ive. 
The genus, as defined in the ‘Genera’ (iii. B00) an and by Mr. 
Sereno Watson (Proc. Amer. Acad. xiv. 236), includes many species 
ee 
* He agen this to his “young friend, Mr. William Jackson Hooker, of NoF 
wich, F. LS. most assiduous and intelligent botanist, already well known by ot 
oO for Mr. Turner's work far more disting ished by bis 
illustrations of the difficult genus Jungermannia, to which he has given peculiat 
attention. The reticulated habit of this his favonidite ores accords with what 
is most remarkable in any Hookeria” (Trans. Linn. Soc. ix 
+ Further animadversions by Salisbury, not unmixed with ersonal attach, 
will be found in his ‘Genera,’ p. 86. ‘* What will an impartial historian says 
se 
descend to posterity in the glorious com of Robert’s, Joubert’s. Aubriet 
er orte’s, Merian’s, Spaendoch’s, Bimet's  Ehret’s}, Sowerby’ ho Reims 
two a — clear Edwards’, another victim, of Sir J. + 
