ON THE PROTEACEiE OF JUSSIEU. 29 



2dly, He limited it, leaving unnoticed that part to which 

 at a latter period he exclusively applied the name. 



Srdly, He resumed his first opinion. 



4thly, He subdivided it into two genera, giving them 

 the same names which are adopted in the present paper. 



5thly, He continued the subdivision but reversed the 

 names, and for a reason, as it would seem, which is now 

 known to be founded in error. 



And lastly, Having acquired more perfect materials [43 

 and perceiving the insufBciency of his characters, he united 

 them together, thus ending exactly where he commenced. 



But, as in this he has been universally followed for nearly 

 forty years, Protea can no longer be considered as more 

 strongly associated with any one species of the genus than 

 another ; and therefore this name so familiar to botanists, 

 if the necessity of again subdividing the genus be allowed, 

 ought certainly to be given to that part which is best known, 

 and which contains the greatest number of published species, 

 especially if the name be at least as applicable to this as to 

 any other subdivision : now this part unquestionably is the 

 Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave, the Protea of the first 

 edition of the Genera Plantarum and Classes Plantarum, 

 and of the present Essay. 



The question respecting the application of the name 

 Leucadendron is reducible to a smaller compass. Mr. Salis- 

 bury is aware that the Linnean character of the genus is 

 only applicable to Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave ; and 

 therefore, consistently with the reasons which determined 

 him in his application of the name Protea, Leucadendron 

 ought to have been retained for that which he has called 

 Erodendrum in Paradisus Londinensis ; and this it seems 

 he would have done, had it not been differently used by 

 Plukenet, whom he professes to follow in this respect. 

 But as rejecting Linnean names when accompanied by 

 characters, for those of Plukenet who never published a 

 single character, is somewhat unusual, it must be supposed 

 to have arisen from the latter author's more appropriate 

 use of this significant name, while it may also be presumed 

 that Linnseus's appHcation of it is wholly unsuitable j 



