1839] Stalagmitis Gantbogioldes, and Lauras Cassia, 



127 



own inclinations, not less than my esteem for the author, dictates — 

 my sentiments regarding it; the more so, as I do not consider the 

 genus itself a tenable one. To its goodness, or otherwise, however, 

 I should not have thought it necessary thus to advert, if the old name had 

 been retained; what I object to is, ihe inconsistency of, in the same 

 breath, setting up a decidedly bad genus without a single genuine species 

 to support it, for such I hold Stalagmitis to be, and putting down a sup- 

 posed good one, resting on the very same foundation on which its suc- 

 cessor is raised, the same species being the basis of both. In the case 

 of Stalagmitis I object to the course pursued, on the ground of its being 

 ab origine a spurious genus, constituted partly from notes taken from one 

 species, the flow^ers of which the author of the genus (Murray) never 

 saw, and partly from flowers of another which he examined, and then, 

 with what ingenuity he was master of, invented from these heterogeneous 

 loaterials a generic character not referable to either. That every thing 

 might be in just keeping in this curious medley, it now appears, that he 

 had for his only species a specimen made up of the fragments of two 

 plants, no more fit to represent either correctly than his character could 

 amalgamate the peculiarities of both, they being referable to two distinct 

 natural orders. With all this information before him, and hunted out 

 with much labour by Dr. Brown and himself, Dr. Graham, inconsider- 

 ately I should hope, tells us that the generic name of Xanthochymus 

 must be dropped, and that of Stalacjmitis put in its place, or, in other 

 words, declares that w^e must put down a good genus and set up a non- 

 entity, a genus without a species. That one of the two must be drop- 

 ped is certain ; but I hope botanists will show more consideration for the 

 meritorious anddiligent labours of Roxburgh, than to displace his really 

 well defined generic name, in favour of one which nobody could under- 

 stand, or apply from its own terms, and which, now that its inconsistencies 

 have been brought to light, no one could adopt. As I have examined 

 this question some wliat in detail, in a postscript to my article on the 

 Guttiferge, 1 shall subjoin" it also, for the benefit of those who may not 

 have the opportunity of consulting the original work, in the hope that, 

 by thus calling attention to the subject, my remarks may have the effect 

 of causing botanical authors to pause before they sanction, by adopting 

 them, such uncalled for, and, I fear, if not opposed in time, likely to 

 become mischievous, innovations — I now take leave of the subject, and 

 sincerely hope I may not again have to revert to it. 



p, S.— After this article was completed and the greater part of it print- 

 ed, I received Lindley's " Flora Medica," a new work just issued from 

 the press, and, like all the other wwks of the accomplished author, form- 



