14 
not new, we must suppose that a new property has recently 
been imparted to it, which is absurd; and what better proof 
of its newness can be offered than by the facts made patent, 
that it is only now in the act of descending our rivers. To 
my mind, the evidence is conclusive that it is a foreign 
importation, and it is only when we are satisfied on that point - 
that we can properly discuss the question of whence came it? 
Now this is a point on which no ex cathedra dictum can at 
present be pronounced. The question can only be settled by 
a careful comparison of our plant with its congeners in other 
countries. It appears, however, that plants of the genus 
** Anacharis” are confined to the American continent, and 
- that one plant, called “ Anacharis Nuttalli,” or  Udora 
Canadensis,” very closely resembling, if not identical with 
ours, is found in the American rivers. Dr. J OHNSTON has 
specimens from Dr. Maciacan, gathered in Detroit River, 
which exactly resembled his Berwickshire plant, save only 
a slight difference in the outline of the leaves. 
The American plant is frequent in the rivers from Canada 
to Virginia. I think, therefore, we may safely answer the 
question of “ whence it came,” by saying, “ From North 
~ America.” * 
But, then, how did he get here? Now there are various 
ways in which a plant may be imported. A Botanist, in the 
ardour of that Botanical instinct which prompts him to 
surround himself with as many as possible of the beautiful 
and varied forms of vegetable life, might have introduced it ; 
but we have no evidence that such has been the case, although 
Botanists have been known to do such things. If one might 
hazard a conjecture, I should say that it was most likely 
introduced at or about Rugby, with American timber, during 
Gi? ial ae de, 
as it does not a that it is found in Norway, or indeed anywhere in 
Northern Europe, I cannot subscribe to his assertion, 
