316 A COMMENTAUY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
The characters, by which Willdenow attempts to distin- 
guish these trees from each other, are, I am convinced, quite 
insufficient, being all often found in the same individual ; 
nor have I been able to discover any certain character by 
which the C. medica and C aurantium can be distino^uish- 
ed, if we exclude the taste of their fruit, which seems in 
fact to have been the distinction actually, although not 
avowedly, in the contemplation of Linnaeus. Accordingly, 
M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. iv. 575, 578), called the C. medica, 
Oranger acide, and the Citrus Auraiitium^ Oranger doux 
and observes, " aussi je n'assure que parmi les varietes que 
j'ai citees a le suite de ces deux especes, il ne s''en trouve 
qu''on puisse rapporter indifferamment a Tune aussi bien 
qu'a Tautre." This should certainly have prevented this 
author from making two species. 
The attempt made by Risso, and adopted by Decandolle 
(Prodr. i. 539), to form five species from the Citrus medica 
and C. Aurantium of Linnaeus, will, I am persuaded, be 
found abortive, although he admits into his specific charac- 
ters mere varieties of form and taste in the fruit. What 
would be said of a botanist, who should attempt to divide 
the Apple-irf.e'mio a number of species from similar circum- 
stances. Besides, these botanists attempt to found these 
five species on the various degrees in which the petiolus is 
winged, and on the leaves being blunt or sharp at the end, 
circumstances which, as I have said, will be found to vary 
in the same individual. Besides, what difference is there- 
between a petiolus subalatus and a petiolus subnudus, by 
which M. Decandolle attempts to distinguish between the 
Limonium and Aurantium. The only character introduced 
by these botanists that deserves notice, is the number of 
stamina. I have not paid sufficient attention to this circum- 
stance, in the various kinds found in India, to enable me to 
speak decidedly on the subject ; and, so far as relates to 
