OLD-TIME FLOWERS 
205 
names and identity. Checking this result again by an 
American work of 1806, there remain about thirty- 
six plants common to all three, and five additional 
common to the two latter that are not mentioned at all 
by Rea. This gives us what must be a fairly accurate 
list for the entire period which we wish to know about; 
and Bradley of course covers all the first half of the 
time and a little more. All of the things mentioned 
by these two English writers, however, were not suit¬ 
able to America, where climate offered so much greater 
extremes; but our present-day knowledge of what will 
survive and thrive here, supplies the data for elimina¬ 
tion which contemporary records fail to give. 
Some of the long-ago favorites of Rea’s time were 
dethroned in Bradley’s, only to be again restored later 
on—unless we regard Bradley’s list as carelessly pre¬ 
pared. I am compelled to think that it was, in some 
parts; but, on the whole, I suppose it is as complete 
as need be, for it mentions all the most prominent 
things. Asphodels, though common enough, had prob¬ 
ably never been greatly planted at any time; some of 
our earliest gardens entertained them, however, yet 
Bradley omits them. The lady’s smock or cuckoo 
flower —Cardamine pratensis —was ignored by him, 
likewise the bastard saffron —Carthamus tinctorius; so 
too were the martagon lilies, but this surely is an over¬ 
sight, for these were continuous favorites over a 
