AMARYLLIDACEvE. 
293 
principal fissures of the crown when it is three- 
lobed opposite the sepaline ribs, the indenture of 
each lobe opposite the petaline ; style mostly 
tri partible, sometimes by accident (in semidouble 
or degenerated double flowers) tripartite ; ovules 
in from 2 to 4 rows which are mostly imperfect 
and confused; seeds with a black shell. 
Mr. Haworth was bold to say that “ it was better for his 
future reputation that many years had elapsed without his 
genera and species of this section or suborder having been 
adopted by others, for that adopted they will be, and then 
must be proved his having seen just so far before his com- 
petitors that “ his characters are founded on the solid laws 
of botanical proportions,” and that “ he knows their vali- 
dity.” I wish to give Mr. Haworth full credit for his labours, 
though, indeed, I cannot say that his descriptions always 
tally with the heads under which he places them ; but after 
a careful inspection of the second edition of his Monograph, 
without any wish except to ascertain the truth, I must take 
leave to say that it is utterly impossible that the scientific 
public should ever adopt his generic characters, because they 
are founded on trivial features, in some cases unfit even to 
support a specific distinction ; and although the names, which 
Mr. Salisbury first published without any definitions will be 
properly retained, they must be attached to generic charac- 
ters very different from those given by Mr. Haworth. The 
erroneous features on which he has built are the relative pro- 
portion of the tube, limb, and cup, the form of the margin of 
the cup, the colour of the flower, the length of the filaments 
and style, the smoothness of the scape, the colour and shape 
of the leaves, not one of which is fit to be made the founda- 
tion of a generic character. It sometimes occurs that through- 
out a genus there maybe a very striking disproportion between 
the tube and limb, which is so manifest that it is tempting, 
and pretty safe, to insert it in amongst the features, though it 
would be more properly subjoined as an observation ; the 
proportion of the cup to the tube may be more important, 
and a peculiar colour may be found to coincide with the 
limits of some genera, but neither can support a generic 
character which is not founded on some more decisive dis- 
tinction. Mr. Haworth is not, however, consistent even in 
the use of the features he adopts; for he makes the style in- 
cluded a generic feature of Qileus, yet style always included 
