1S$08.] Aionthly Botanical Report. he 91 
can hardly believe it to be, as is here suspected, a creation of the Dutch gardeners; for, 
though we would not elevate it to the rank of a distinct species, yet the permanency of its 
peculiarities, we think, shews the influence of some cause different from the effects of mere 
horticulture. 5. Gentiana asc/epicdea, a native of most parts of Germany and Switzerland, 
and consequently well known to the older botanists, whence the host of synonyms, that are 
here brouglit forward. Dr. Sims has suggested a doubt if Pallas’s plant be the same as the 
one here figured. Perhapsthis doubt might have been extended to the species described by 
Linnzus himself, as he has stated the calyx to be equal to the corolla; which, according to 
the figure and description here given, is several times shorter. Perhaps this organ may be 
more liable to vary than Dr Sims seems to expect. 6. Prenanthes a/bz. The same plant 
that-we had lately occasion to mention, (vide Botanical Report for November) as published 
in the Paradisus Londinensis under the name of P. suavis. This plant is a native of North 
America, where it is a celebrated remedy for the bite of venomous serpents, and so extremely 
bitter, as to have obtained the name of Gall of the Earth. The manner in which Dr. Sims 
mentions this circumstance, together with a sly note of admiration affixed to the synonym of 
P. suavis! seems silently to insinuate the peculiar impropriety of this name as applied to so 
bitter a plant. But perhaps swaws is never properly used in opposition to amarus, in the sense 
which is here meant, notwithstanding the Lexieons all render the term, as sweet in smell] and 
taste, and notwithstanding “Lucretius says, ‘ quod swave est aliis, aliis fit amarum2? 7. Cliy- 
santhemum coccineum, the figure of which being deferred to the next number, we shali like- 
wise defer our report. 
In the 31st number of the Paradisus ] ondinensis, omitted in our last report, we have, 1.Ca- 
lypso éorealis, the Cypripedium bu/bosum, of Linnaeus, figured in Dr. Smith’s Spicilegium” 
Swartz had before separated it from Cypripedium, calling at one time Limodorum boreal, 
and atterwards Cymbidium dvreale, with the species, ef neither of which genera it has in our 
opinion nearly as much affinity as with those of Cypripedium. We do not mean to object 
to its being separated from the latter genus, but we would just.remark that there is not so 
much difference between one four-lobed and two two-lohed authers, as‘may at first sight ap- 
pear. 2. Mesembry anthemum aeinaciforme. 3. Jatropha multifida. The French Physic- 
nut of Browne. In the 32d number of the same, we have, 1. Smithia sensitive. Th his ac- 
count of which, Mr. Salisbury takes the opportunity of maintaining the truth of his former 
assertion, that he had the honor of conferring its present name upon this curious little plant, 
which Dr. Smith had himself called in question by quoting the authoriry of Mr. Salisbury 
himself, in his Prodromus. The whole business is here very satisfactorily explained; but it 
concerns the public very little to know whether the name was first applied by this or that aue 
thor; but after Mr Salisbury had obtained Mr. Dryander’s permission to suffer his name to 
stand as godfather, he ought ever after sacredly to have kept the secret. But unfortunately 
for the science, Dr. Smith and Mr. Salisbury after professing the most inviolable friendship 
for several years, having fallen out, are become such inveterate enemies, that while the one 
refuses to acknowledge even honours received trom the hands of the other, the latter has de- 
clared war against the Linnaan system apparently for no other reason, but through it, to 
wound the sides of his former friend, the professed admirer and champion of that system. 
2. Randia /ongiflora, a genus named by Houston, in honour of his contemporary Isaac Rand, 
but afterwards united by Thunberg with Gardenia, where it has been suffered to remain by 
botanists in general, except Lamarck, Mr. Salisbury now doubts whether Rothmannia must 
not be absorbed in it: we profess to have no doubt, but that both species really belong to the 
Same genus. 3. Hibiscus tiliaceous, here called tiliefolius ; 1f this name be more correct, we 
still do not think the change.was necessary. 
Professor Martyn has, at length, finished his colossal work, the new edition of « Philip 
Miiler’s Gardener’s and Botanist’s Dictionary.’ The botanical part is so much enlargedé 
by the present editor, that it deserves to be considered as an entire new work. It professes 
to be no Jess than a complete account of all the known phenogamic vegetables, the crypto- 
ganic, (except perhaps the Filices) being hardiy subjects of cultivation, are of course omit- 
ted, or limited to such as are notoriously useful in the arts, or as the food of man. The IC= 
nera are arranced alphabetically, and the class and order to which each genus belongs in the 
Linnzan system, and its place in the natural orders of Jussieu, are carefully stated. The 
generic character is given at length, for the most part translated from ‘* Schreber’s edition of 
the Genera Plantarum of Linneus ;” then the essential character of the genus taken from 
the “ Systema Vegetabilinm, or Wildenow’s edition of the Species Plantarum;” next follows 
the names of the species arranged, as in the Linnean system, numbered, and accompanied 
by a complete list of synonyms from all preceding authors; lastly, the specific character ig 
given. ach number is then recapitulated, but not the name, and a more full description, 
where such could be obtained, is given together with its native country, and other 
circumstances in its history. The numbers are then a third time repeated, more or less 
conjointly, under which the propagation and appropriate cultivation of each is recorded. 
The last-mentioned part rests chiefly on the authority of Miller, the learned Professor not: 
. being bunself a practical gardener.. Indeed this part was made so complete by Miller, 
: that 
