28 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, 
I have examined various other passages in Clement-Mullet's 
book which contain references to the giroflee, both those noted by 
Dr. Trabut, to whom I am much indebted for calling my attention 
to this work, and others, and have compared them with the 
corresponding passages in the earlier Spanish translation by Ban- 
queri, who prints the Arabic text side by side with the Spanish 
rendering.* Those of interest in regard to the present inquiry occur 
in chapters xv. and xxvii. The sentence relating to doubleness 
quoted above appears in the course of the later chapter (T. II. p. 
257), and is rendered somewhat differently in the Spanish (P. II. 
p. 267), which states that the yellow form is very weak, and that 
[? in consequence] some, so they say, d© not set fruit. (" El amarillo 
es muy endeble ; y segun se dice, alguno no fructified") The first 
statement, however, scarcely appears consistent with the facts or 
with later portions of the text. In the article, e.g., which deals 
with the violet (as to the rendering of which both translators agree) 
we find the following statement : " There is an analogy between the 
giroflee (Sp. alheli) and the violet as regards treatment and method 
of cultivation, with this difference, however, that the giroflee f is 
more vigorous and better able to survive any accidents which may 
befall it . " Then follow the remark that the yellow giroflee is a triennial, 
and a reiteration of the statement that every proceeding followed 
in the case of the violet is applicable also to the giroflee (Fr. tr. p. 259, 
Sp. tr. p. 269). If, however, the usual duration of the life of the 
yellow giroflee were three years, one would hardly expect to find it 
described as " very weak." Moreover, as the giroflees in general are 
here mentioned as being particularly vigorous, and the yellow form is 
individually referred to in the sentence immediately following, it 
is hardly likely that no reference would have been made to its being 
an exception to the general statement regarding vigour if this were 
actually the case. Furthermore, the statement that it is said to 
yield no seed is precisely the comment which we should expect if 
Clement-Mullet's view, that the characteristic to which Ibn al Awam 
here alludes is really doubleness, is correct. In the works of the 
medieval writers who make mention of the double form of the 
Wallflower it is usual to find superadded the remark that this form 
is so double that it produces no seed. (See Dodoens, Dalechamps, 
J. Camerarius jun., Tabernaemontanus, Parkinson, J. Bauhin, and 
others.) To these early writers this fact evidently appeared some- 
what out of the common and one which called for some remark ; and 
the Arab authority quoted by Ibn al Awam, having heard of this 
double form — it would appear that he had not himself seen it — may 
well have had the same feeling regarding such an anomaly, and have 
* The only known manuscript copies of the original Arabic work appear 
to be the one in the Library of the Escurial, the one at Leyden, and one, of the 
first part only, in the National Library in Paris. (See the preface to Clement- 
Mullet's work, p. 18,) 
f To avoid unnecessary repetition I give the name in one language only, 
using the French word as being more familiar. 
