G01.) ¢ 
fubje&ts nothing; or people comprehends 
all the national dignity which is not in 
the crown. He who is afhamed of being 
one of the people, has no right to boaft of 
the name of Luglifbman. 
Yours, &c. 
N.N. 
ET TTI 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
HE very favourable and perhaps par- 
tial account of the Flora Britannica, 
given in your Magazine for January, is 
too intelligent in itfelf not to deferve af- 
fiftance from thofe capabie of adding to 
its accuracy ; and too flattering to its au- 
thor, not to excite in him a wifh of ex- 
culpating himfelf from any cenfures it 
may feem to contain againt him. Yet 
thefe two objefts would hardly have occa- 
fioned my troubling you with the prefent 
letter, had I not thought it juftice to the 
public to avow fome miftakes into which 
TI have fallen, and at the fame time to ac- 
count for a longer delay of the remaining 
volumes than I once intended ; for both 
which communications I have judged your 
Magazine the moft proper vehicle. -_ 
The reafon affigned in the preface for 
ublifhing the work in an incomplete ftate 
is really and truly the only one that ope- 
rated with me at the time; it was fug- 
gefted by my publifher, and had the fanc- 
_tion of my molt enlightened friends. I 
had then continued my manalcript far in- 
to the latt clafs among the moffes and 
lichens,and had thought of nothing lefs than 
poft poning that part, being determined to 
finith the work as completely as wasthenin 
thy power, Since the publication however 
of the firft two volumes, feveral new mo- 
tives have prefented themfelves, which o- 
blige me to defer the iequel longerthan [ in- 
tended. cf, [ with to fee Mr. Dickfon’s 
fourth Fafciculus of Cryptogamia, which 
is on the point of publication. 2dly, The 
Prodromus Lichenographiz Suecicz of Dr. 
Acharius takes the lead fo much in that 
department, that it is abfolutely effential 
tomy purpofe to compare fpecimens with 
that auchor ; and this cannot be done, ei- 
ther in the winier fealon, or in the prefent 
milerable {tate of nort’ern politics. * 3dly, 
. A general work of Mr. Perfoon on Fungi, 
fome fheets of which he has fent me, pro- 
miles (o be fo important, that I wifh to fee 
itcomplete before I digeft the Britith Fun- 
gi into order. 
Whatever reafons therefore might occa- 
 fion the firft delay, thefe, which are ana- 
logous to what you fuppofed, make me 
Rope the public will in the end have no 
Lester from Dr. F. E, Smith, 
is but imperfeétly treated. 
‘now fail not to be found at Dover. 
269 
reafon to complain of it. A. ftill farther 
advantage will accfue from my having the 
benefit of two feafens more (the {pring of 
1800 and 1801) to inveftigate the difficult 
genus Salix, which I have already written 
twice over, and in which the work will be 
more likely to merit the praife of labour 
and originality than perhaps in any other 
part, though it will ftill contain only an 
imperfect ketch of the fubject. I proceed 
to notice fome of your remarks. 
The order of Syngenefia Monogamia 
appears not to be founded in nature, nor 
uleful in practice; becaufe fome Gentiane, 
Viole, and Lobéliz, have the anthere per-~ 
feétly united, others not at all. Ihave 
more to fay on this fubjet than can be 
admitted here. bs 
The genus of Potamogetor I am aware 
I have more 
than one new Britith {pecies. 
As to changing names, Radicla mille- 
grana@ is no ** arbitrary alteration”’ or no- 
velty, but the old generic name of Ray, 
retained asa fpecific one, and furely pre- 
ferable to Lizoides, which I have proved te 
- be falfe. My Silene zzfata would certainly 
have been called S. Behen, had there nog 
een another already fo called in Linnaeus § 
In the ipecific names of the genus Glag. 
cium, 1 confefs I have been tempted to 
follow Geertner in preferring precifions 
elegance, and truth, to barbarifm, confu- 
fion, and error. The name of the common 
wall-flower is not changed by me, but it 
is fo called by Linnzus. On this fubject, 
however, I entirely agree with you in prin- 
ciple, otherwife I might have changed half 
the names in the book. 
I differed from M. de Lamarck in his 
ideas of Funcus acutus and maritimus, be~ 
caufe analogy led me to judge the panicle " 
muft be terminal in one if in the other; 
buf perhaps I may be miftaken, and have 
been led to think the two fpecies more 
akin than they are, becaule of other au-~ 
thors having contounded them. 
I am forry to fay I fear I have added to 
the confufion concerning the Dover Cam- 
pion, fer Miller’s pretendedly authentic ’ 
fpecimen deceived me. Original ones in 
the Britith Mufeum, gathered at Dover, 
are a plant I do not know, and which is 
We 
muft wait in hopes of its being one day, 
recovered, as was the cafe with Ligufticum 
cornubienje. 1 fhould ciaim no merit, even 
if I had corrected mytelf by the help. of a 
much lefs able botanift than Mr. Curtis, . 
on the fabject of Ceraftium tetrandrum. ¥ 
‘have already found out my error in con- 
founding two fpecies under Trifolium fli- 
jo mes 
