INTRODUCTION. 
viii 
from Camellia, in several points of sufficient importance to justify 
their being separated. Linnaeus not only considered them as two dis¬ 
tinct genera, but as belonging to different classes, under which they 
will be found arranged in the first and second editions of his Species 
Plantarum;* the Theas, in Polyandria Monogynia; and the Camellias, 
in Monadelphia Polyandria. In the Praelectiones in Ordines Natu- 
rales,-f - they are brought together, and form part of the natural order 
Columniferae; and it has been subsequently remarked by Sir James 
Edward Smith, in Rees' Cyclopedia (article, Thea), that they ought 
to stand next to one another in the artificial, as well as in the natural 
system. 
Willdenow followed the arrangement of Linnaeus, which was also 
adopted in the first and second editions of the Hortus Kewensis, and 
more recently by Professor Sprengel, in his Systema Vegetabilium. 
Mr. Ker and Dr. Sims have recorded their opinion in the Botanical 
Magazine, folio 998, that the two genera ought to be united; or, if 
they are to be kept separate, that they should be placed in the same 
class. Professor Lindley, who has had the best opportunities of exa¬ 
mining the genera, doubts the existence of any decisive limits by 
N 
which Camellia is to be distinguished from Thea. In the Botanical 
Register, folio 1078, he has, however, given brief characters of the 
species, with large flowers, which he considers strictly referable to the 
former genus, namely, Camellia Japonica, C. Reticulata , and the plant 
known in the gardens as the Double Purple Sasanqua, which he has 
named C. while the other species, with small flowers, he 
would refer to Thea. This arrangement, although emanating from 
such an authority, appears to us objectionable, and for this reason: 
<• 
* Species Plantarum, first edit. p. 515 and 698; second edit. p. 734 and 982. 
t Praelectiones in Ord. Nat. p. 451, &c. 
