74 
MONOGRAPH 
having found it himself. Meantime Gaertner 
having proved that the chief linnean distinction 
of separate stamina was wrong, since the plant 
he described as the same, bad syngenesious 
stamina : the Genus became fixed by the strik- 
ing character of plumose seeds, and well dis- 
tinguished by it from Eupatorium-j but he wrong- 
ly called it Critonia , mistaking it for a Crito- 
nia of Brown, which Smith states to be the 
Eupatorium dalea , with scabrous pappus. All 
the sp. of Eupatorium have more or less such 
a scabrous or dentate pappus. The alternate 
leaves are no character of the Kuhnia since I 
have found a species with opposite leaves, and 
the very Kuhnia of Linneus has sometimes 
such leaves below. 
The plant of Gaertner tab. 174, who only 
figured the seeds, has been made since a second 
Sp. of the Genus, and called Kuhnia critonia ; 
but I shall show by Wildenow and others pres- 
ently, that it is by no means positive that he 
was mistaken, since the original Kuhnia of 
Linneus, offers sometimes on the same plant 
the characters of both species ; Y entenat and 
Persoon unite both again. 
Sir James Smith regreted that these plants 
were not introduced as yet in the English Gar- 
dens. In Loudon Cyclopedia of plants they 
are not mentioned as introduced in 1829, being 
omitted. Yet in the second edition of Sweet 
Hortus Brittanicus, published in 1830, I find 3 
species mentioned as introduced, the K cupa - 
torioides in 1812, K. critonia in 1816, and K 
rosmarinifolia in 1827. But they must be 
very scarce, and they had not been figured yet 
in the magazines, nor elucidated by English 
Botanists. 
