THE DAHLIA: ITS REPUTED INTRODUCTION IN 1789, 311 
truth about an event less than thirty years old could then have easily 
been ascertained. 
However, upon turning up the second edition of that work, which 
was published in 1813, in vol. v. p. 87, under the heading Dahlia 
superflua, where several varieties are given, appears the short note, 
" Nat. of Mexico. Introd. 1789 by the Marchioness of Bute " ; and 
under Dahlia frustranea, " Nat. of Mexico. Introd. 1802 by Mr. 
John Fraser." The use of the specific names superflua and frustranea 
may be explained by just briefly saying that in 1810 M. de Candolle 
had divided the then known varieties into two species, D. superflua 
and D. frustranea (see " Ann. du Museum," tome xv. p. 307), although 
he adopted Willdenow's name Georgina contrary to the view expressed 
in a footnote by the Professors of the Museum under whose authority 
the " Annales " were published. 
This brings us to the original source from which every author 
since 1813 has derived his historical information as to the first intro- 
duction of the Dahlia into England, and it accounts for the fact that 
no author prior to that date ever attributed the first introduction 
to the year 1789. There was an absence of authority for their doing 
so. Mr. Fraser, it may be observed, was not, as was supposed by 
the " Botanical Magazine " and the " Hortus Kewensis," the original 
introducer of D. coccinea (a variety of D. frustranea), and he is no 
more entitled to be considered such than Mr. Woodford is of D. rosea, 
both those varieties, together with D. pinnata, having formed part 
of the Bute introduction, and therefore Lady Bute's name is entitled 
to stand in both places. At a later stage in this inquiry this will be 
more clearly shown. 
The use of the titles " Lady " and " Marchioness of Bute " has caused 
some perplexity. In the year 1789 there was no such person as the 
Marchioness of Bute. The Marquisate was not created till 1796. 
This was a preliminary surprise, for how then could the Marchioness 
of Bute be credited with the introduction ? If 1789 were the correct 
date, apart from those circumstances against it already mentioned 
in the earlier part of this inquiry, it seemed possible that the lady 
subsequently known as Marchioness might have introduced the flower 
when her title was something different. But the awkward conflict 
was this, that in 1789 there was a Lady Bute who was then the wife 
of John, third Earl of Bute. After his retirement from his unfortunate 
political life he lived for many years in the country, and was greatly 
interested in botanical and scientific pursuits. He died in 1792, but 
his wife survived him till 1794. Therefore up to this point it seemed 
that Lady Bute, or the Countess, as she would be correctly styled, 
was just as likely to have been the introducer as anyone else. 
Against this it will be remembered that the introducer was said 
to be the wife of the British Ambassador at Madrid. John, 3rd Earl 
of Bute, was never this, but of course that need not have prevented 
his wife from corresponding with persons in Madrid and introducing 
the Dahlia all the same. 
