J U N 



Nothing can be more elegant tlian the general habit of 

 this genus, which is, in a manner, intermediate between the 

 true Moffes, or Miifd, and the other HepatUx and jHgx. 

 It is throughout highly vafcular or cellular, exhibiting the 

 appearance of iine internal reticulations, as in Honleria and 

 fome other mofles ; but the texture is commonly more ten- 

 der and fucculent than in that family. Some fpccies emit 

 an aromatic fraa;rance, like that of red cedar wood, very 

 perceptible and delio;htful in groves, or the ihady walks of 

 gardens. The capfule is edentially different from that of 

 the true mofTes, va having no opfrciilum or lid ; but the fin- 

 gular character of the ityb tcrminatmg the veil, or corolla, 

 is proper to both. Great ambiguity occurs in the botanical 

 delcriptions of the various fpecics, from Linsxu'? having 

 termed the whole plant a frond, though he often inadvert- 

 ently calls its fegmcnts leaves, folia, and fpeaka of the Jhm, 

 as if the plant were a real herba, as in tl-.e Mufcs. On this 

 fubject the writer of the prefent article has long been at a 

 lofs to form a decided opinion, and in the delcriptions of 

 manv Jun^erntjnnis ill l-lrigU/]} Botany, lias given into the 

 pradtice of Schreber and others, who ule the terms leaves 

 and ilipulas, for what, according to the original Linnxin 

 principle, are fegm«nts of the frond, leaHets, or fcales. On 

 mature deliberation, however, it feems beft to keep rigidly 

 to this laft-mentionej principle. The llalks, and tlie leaf- 

 lets, or fegments of the fronds, will always be found homo- 

 geneous and infeparable. The apparent leaves are never 

 thrown off like the real leaves of other plants, but are of one 

 fubftance with the part that bears them. The Jungcnnanwie 

 acauks, which conftitute the laft fefiion of the genus, as epi- 

 phylla, Hedw. Theor. t. 21 — 23 ; pingiiis, p:ngl. Bot. t. 18,-; 

 mullifiJa, t. 186, S:c. have to all intents and purpofes real 

 fronds, not Items and leaves ; and it would be offering great 

 violence to nature to fuppofe fome fpecies of a genus to be 

 frondofe and others herbaceous. Some German writers in- 

 deed cut this gordian knot, by abolilhing the term frond al- 

 together ; but againft fuch a meafure we muft put in our 

 decided proteft. (See Frond.) Little difficulty will arife 

 from calling the fegments leaflets inilead of leaves, and what 

 •have been termed Itipulas, may, by the analogy of ferns, be 

 fafely named fcales, fquamx. In Engl. Bot. v. 3 i. p. 2231, 

 we have fuggelled the propriety of terming the larger half 

 of the leaflet, (in thofc fpecies ufually known by the appel- 

 lation of auricled,') in Latin hhvs, and the fmaller one, or 

 auricle, lolulus. This wi'.l be found very commodious in 

 conftrufting neat fpecilic characters. In Englilh leaflet and 

 Jlde-hbe will be equivalent to thofe terms. 



On all thefe particulars, and others, we have had frequent 

 confullation with our able friend Mr. W. .1. Hooker, whofe 

 attention to this genus has been very deep and minute, and 

 who has undertaken to illuftrate the Britifh fpecies in par- 

 ticular, witii excellent figures and defcriptions. 



Our native fpecies amount to above 60, tho\igh Hudfon 

 has but 30. The foreign ones are very numerou,";, but the 

 greater part remain undefcribed, except what profeffor 

 Swartz has given in his Prndromns. Mr. Archibald Menzies 

 collefted, at the Cape of Good Hope, Staten Land, the 

 well coaft of North America, and cfpecially at Dnn<y bay, 

 in New Zealand, a profufion of new and magnificent fpecies, 

 of which he has favoured us with fpecimens, but he referves 

 to himfelf their defcription, which is anxioufly expefted by 

 his friends. It is prefumed that 150 J ungermanr.is might 

 eafily be reckoned up. I^innaeus's SylL Veg. ed. 14, has 

 but 33 in all, but his herbarium contains many more. 

 Dillenius was the firft who laboured with much fuccefs to 

 ■Jxplain the fpecics of this genus, though Miclieh alio be- 

 ftowed no fmall pains upon them, but his figures are, in this 



j U N 



inllance, not very cxprcllive. Schmidel, in his Icones, has 

 illullrated a few fpecics to amply and accurately as to leave 

 nothing to be wiihed. It is but jullice to Mr. Sowerby to 

 fiy, that the plates he has given of Jungcrmanmt, in En^I. 

 But. are as djaraclerillic as molt botanical figures of any 

 kind. 



A natural dillribution of the fpecies is dill wanting. Lin- 

 nius divides them into five feCtions. 



1. F ruiirls pinnate ; leaflets turned to one fide. Of this the 

 common J. ajphmoides, Engl. Bot. t. 178*$, and bidentatat 

 t. 606, are examples. 



2. Fronds pinnate ; leafets -zvitlj auricles, orjlipnlas {rather 

 fcales), beneath. 



.See J. nemorofn, t. 607, which has auricles (fide-Iobcs) 

 and reptans, t. 608, which has fcales. 



3. Fronds imbricated. 



Under this head are arranged tamarifcifoUa, t. 1086, cilia- 

 ris, t. 2241, and fome other very fine fpecics. 



4. Shoots imbricated on all fids, the leaflets fcattcred. 



To this belong concinnata, t. 2229, and trichophylUt, 

 t. 22J2. /. rupeflris and alpina are properly cllablithed as 

 a genus of real iV/«y2-i by Ehrhart, under the name oi Andre<eay 

 ^ndraa of Fl. Brit. 1178. Engl. Bot. t. 1277, 1278, and 

 2162, and Hooker in Tr. of Linn. Soc. v. 10 381. 



J. IVithout aflem, the fronds beinnfimple. 



To this, as we have already faid, hduug epiphylla, pinguis, 

 and nntltifida. 



The intelligent reader will eafily perceive the ijifufficiency 

 and inaccuracy of thefe fubdivifions, and- the necefiitj of 

 better. The difficulty lies in finding technical charaotcrfv 

 to mark natural fedtions. It is eafy enough to arrange any 

 natural objeAs by fuch characters artificially^ without re- 

 gard to their real affinities. S. 



JUNGEVSKOI, in Geography; a town of RufTia, in the 

 government of Tobollk ; 56 miles S. of Kemllcoi. 



JUNGFRAU (probably from the Celtic Jim-fra, i. e. a 

 place from which water delcends), a mountain in the canton 

 of Bern, in Switzerland, which, according to profeffor Tral- 

 les's trigoxometrical furvey, rifes 12,852 feet above the level 

 of the fea, and afford? a fpectacle, the fublime beauty of 

 which is fcarcely equalled by any other object of nature in 

 the Alps. The midd'e part of this ItupendcHis mafs is more 

 generally known by tiie above name ; the cuneitorm rock, 

 towards the right hand (when viewed from the Plelfch 

 mountain) is called the Alcnl; and the fimimit, covered by 

 eternal fiiows, is called the Jungfrau-lx.nt. The valley of 

 Lauterbrunn, at the foot of this mountain, is too confined 

 to allow the eye to feize the whole grandeur of the object 

 before it ; but from tiie neijjhbouring Pletfch mountain it 

 maybe feen to the greatell advanUige, together with the 

 vait groups of other craggy mountains and glaciers with 

 which it is connected. 



We read in an article from Bern, in the Moniteur of i5tli, 

 Aug. 181 1, that, in the beginning of that month, two Swifs 

 gentlemen have fucceeded in afceuding the fimimit of this 

 Itupendous mountain, an undertaking which, hitherto, has- 

 been deemed impraaicable. After having fpent three days 

 and four nights on the fnow and ice, and made fome fruitlefs 

 attempts, they have feen their endeavours crowned, on the 

 3d of Augull, when they reached the fummit, where they 

 fixed a black flag. They intend publiUiing an account of. 

 this remarkable journey. 



JUNGFRUN, SroR, a fmall ifland, about fix miles in 

 circuit, on the \V. fide of the gulf of Bothnia ; it is high 

 and rocky, and dangerou'4 tg navigators. N. hvt. 61 10'. 

 E. lung, if 10'. 



Jt-NfisnuH. 



