THE DAHLIA: ITS REPUTED INTRODUCTION IN 1789. 315 
information given in Aiton's ' Hortus Kewensis,' that some were, 
and that the year recorded in that work is a mistake for 1798." 
In the light of the dried specimens we may do more than assume 
it, and feel assured definitely that by some inexplicable and long 
unsuspected means the reversal of the actual figures, a mere printer's 
error perhaps, occurred and passed undetected. 
One more link in the chain and my task is done. This view is 
further confirmed by the very man who is responsible for the mistake. 
As the Director of Kew further points out in his valuable communica- 
tion, Aiton in 1 81 4 published his " Epitome of the second edition of the 
' Hortus Kewensis/ " On p. 267 of that work, under the heading Dahlia 
super flua, and referring to the " H. K." v. p. 87, the date of introduction 
is actually given as 1798. By Aiton naming the introducer as the 
Marchioness of Bute, which, as the Director agrees, was the correct 
title of the lady (the wife of the eldest son of John, third Earl of Bute) 
at that time, but incorrect for 1789, there is the fullest confirmation 
that can be required. 
Again, surprise must be expressed that none of the writers on 
Dahlia history for a century should ever have thought of consulting 
Aiton's " Epitome," or the altered date must have struck them ; and 
yet that work must have been as well known and as easily accessible as 
the " Hortus Kewensis " itself. 
In conclusion, it must be admitted that after all these years it is 
clearly proved that every writer on the history of the Dahlia for a 
century has fallen into the same trap. 
They have all unquestioningly pinned their faith to the " Hortus 
Kewensis " without ever suspecting it to be at fault. The utter incon- 
sistency of a new plant being introduced into Spain 1789 and arriving 
here the same year from the same place before it had been bloomed, 
named, or even described, never seems to have entered the mind of any 
one of them. The reader will no doubt admit that it is one of the most 
amazing discoveries ever made in the annals of floricultural history, 
for the evidence is complete and overwhelming. 
* * * 4fr * 
For the information of the reader I append a brief bibliographical 
list of the principal authorities consulted : — 
Andrews. " The Bot. Rep." Vols. 6, 7, 
" Annales du Museum." 1804 and 1810. 
" Annual Dahlia Register." 1836. 
Baltet. " Chrysantheme et Dahlia." 1906. 
" Bot. Mag." 1804. 
"Bot. Reg." 1815. 
Cavanilles. " Icones et Descriptions Plantarum." Vols, land 3, Madrid, 
I79I-4- 
" Century Book of Gardening." 
Cuthbertson. " The Dahlia." 1897. 
Dumont de Courset. " Le Botaniste Cultivateur." 1805. 
Folkard's *' Plant Lore." 
Gordon. " Dahlias." (1913.) 
" Gossip for the Garden." 
