By Joseph Sabine, Esq. 



161 



for his plant. I am decidedly of opinion that he did not 

 intend to include our Chinese Chrysanthemums under his 

 Chrysanthemum Indicum, and have stated my reason for 

 this opinion at length in a communication to the Linnean 

 Society,* but whether his plants and our large Chinese Chrys- 

 anthemums are to be considered as one species still remains 

 to be determined. 



In my description of the two new semi-double Chinese 

 Chrysanthemums I did not mention the state of the recep- 

 tacles ; in both cases they are without palea?, whilst all the 

 full double flowers which I examined for the purpose in the 

 last season had more or less of these processes. It is, there- 

 fore, clear that the addition to the receptacles of the double 

 flower is produced by the same cause which converts the 

 tubular florets of the single flower into ligulate florets. This 

 fact establishes the correctness of the opinion of those who 

 retained the Chinese Chrysanthemum in the Genus Chrys- 

 anthemum, and the error of those who removed them to 

 Anthemis.+ 



Should it be agreed that the small Yellow Chrysanthemum 

 is the Chrysanthemum Indicum of Linnaeus, and that it is 

 distinct as a species from our Chinese Chrysanthemums, a 

 new specific name must be given to these plants. I am 

 disposed to think that the semi-double White variety, if it 

 be not the original, is not far removed from the wild type of 

 our beautiful collection, and that a correct botanical compari- 

 son of this with the small Yellow Chrysanthemum will settle 

 the controverted question. 



» See Transactions of the Linnean Society, Vol. xiii. 

 f See Horticultural Transactions, Vol iv. page 327. 



VOL. v. Y 



