THE DAHLIA : ITS REPUTED INTRODUCTION IN 1789. 313 
description is in Cavanilles' own wording ; see his Obs. in the text 
to tab. 266 of the " Icones." 
The second specimen is marked " C. G. Ortega (Lady Bute). 
Dahlia rosea, Cav. Ic. pp. 33-265." It is quite a single flower, but 
rather smaller than Cavanilles' figure of that variety. 
The third one is a much larger specimen than Cavanilles' figure. 
On this appear the words " C. G. Ortega (Lady Bute). Dahlia 
coccinea, Cav. p. 3." 
It will be observed that, meagre as are the details, on the first 
specimen is the word " sent," the importance of which will be under- 
stood in the closing remarks of this inquiry. There can be no room 
for doubt that, no matter what may have been the year in which Lady 
Bute or the Marchioness of Bute first introduced the Dahlia here, 
we have here in these three specimens the three original varieties 
that Cavanilles received from Mexico, and that Lady Bute, on the 
authority of the inscriptions on the specimens themselves, must be 
regarded as the original importer into England of all three. That 
her varieties were not later seminal varieties from the original ones 
seems to be clearly established. And it is furthermore quite certain 
that had she received these plants in 1789 before Cavanilles had 
flowered and named them they would not have been marked with his 
names, and, as is the case with the specimen of D. pinnata, have been 
"sent " under the name of Dahlia coeruleo-rubens. That alone destroys 
every possibility of argument in favour of 1789. 
Before finally leaving these specimens it may be useful to anticipate 
the reader's only natural inquiry, " But what does the name C. G. 
Ortega signify ? " It means a great deal in the substantiation of my 
view, as will be seen when we come to consider the last link but one 
in the chain of facts that have been presented. 
Having now made some considerable progress, there was still the 
doubt as to the identity of the lady to whom the credit should be given. 
It has already been stated that she was, according to some writers, 
the wife of the British Ambassador to the Court of Spain in 1789. 
After vainly searching in various directions there seemed to be only 
one course open to settle in a satisfactory manner this point, and that 
was to apply to the Foreign Office for information, for it was obviously 
neither the Earl of Bute nor the Marquis. 
The reply received was eminently favourable, and confirmed my 
previously conceived notion. John Stuart, Viscount Mountstuart 
(afterwards fourth Earl and first Marquis of Bute), was appointed 
British Ambassador at Madrid in 1783, but only held the post for some 
months. He was, however, reappointed in the same capacity in 
1 795> apparently remaining there till 1797. The name of the British 
Ambassador there in 1789 was the Rt. Hon. William Eden, afterwards 
Lord Auckland, who was appointed in 1787 and retained the post 
till July 1789, when he was replaced by Mr. Charles Henry Fraser, 
acting as Minister Plenipotentiary ad interim. 
This official information, it will easily be seen, destroys at once all 
