1808.] Monthly Botanical Report. 279 
? 
Dr. Sims remarks the very near affinity that the whole genus of Ziziphora has with Thymus, 
from which it is hardly distinguished by any other character, than that of being diandous, 
“¢ Faux villis clausus” is as applicable to these two Caucasean species, at least as to Thymus. 
The species here figured. bears the same relation to serpyllacea, as Thymus /anuginosus does to 
T. Serpyllum; we wish therefore that the specific name of /asuginosus had been adopted for it, 
instead of that of Pouschkini, the latter name never having been published though applied.to 
it by the discoverer. 7. The common Catalpa, Bignonia Cata/pa of most authors, but Dr. 
Sims, following Jussieu, has applied the usual specific title as that of the genus, and of course 
was under the necessity of giving a new specific denomination, He has adopted the very ap- 
plicable one from Duhamel of syringifolia. The beautiful figure of the flowering branch of 
this tree, although rather too large even for the double sized plate, does great credit to the 
artist, as does indeed ihe whole number. : 
The Botanists’ Repository contains, 1. A folded plate of that well known flower, the night 
blowing Cereus, Cactus grandifiorus, of Linnzeus. As the author professes to give only new 
and rare plants, or such as have not been previously figured, we wonder heshould have gone 
' $0 far out of his way to give us a representation of this plant, certainly inferior to what we 
have before seen. 2. Gentiana fimbriata, not the fimbriata of Retzius, but as the latter plant is 
probably no other than the G. Seponaria of Linnzus, we should not object to the name, were 
this, as Mr. Andrews supposes, a new and undescribed species. It is the American variety of 
G. ciliata, according to Miller and Linnzeus, and we believe the G. crinita, of Froelich and 
Willdenow. The drawing being made from a pot of seedling plants, as they stood crowded 
together, gives no true idea of the proper habit. 3. Aspalathus globosus; of what country thisis | 
a native, we are not told, we doubrifit belong to-this genus. 4. Solanum detaceum, a gigane 
tic species of night shade which grew in Mr. Lambert’s garden to the height of twelve jeet. 
As it possesses little beauty and smells very offensively when bruised, it wi!l probably, as the 
auther remarks, be always a scarce plant in this country. 5. Protea pinata; supposed here 
to be a new species, but as there is a whole section of the genus called pinnate; the name is 
peculiarly improper, we suspect it to be the P. ciancodes, of Linneus. 
The English Botany for February, omitted in our last Report, contains, besides cryptoga= 
mous plants, which, in our limited account, we have not thought it necessary to particularize, 
1. Trifolium striatum. The figure here given is very characteristic of the plant, but the one 
refered to in Ray’s synopsis can only tend to mislead, being drawn with peduncles longer than 
the leaves, instead of having the heads of flowers sessile. It is, however, undoubtedly the 
plant described by Ray, but we suspect Dillenius erroneously added a wrong figure. It is 
well represented by Vaillant in his Botanicon Parisiens:, under the same name as applied in the 
third edition of Ray’s synopsis. 2. Zannichellia palustris. 3. Quercus sessiliflora, first raised 
to a distinct species by R. A. Salisbury, esq. who gave it the very appropriate name® here 
adopted, preceding authors having considered it as a variety of Q. Robur; from which it is 
distinguished by its female fowers and acorns being sessile, and, as Dr. Smith says, by its 
leaves being more regularly and oppositely sinueted, a circumstance however not very re- 
markable in the figure, and we suspect therefore not to be much depended upon, The timber 
of this species is said to be far less valuable than that of QO Robyr, it shoyld therefore be care- 
fully rejected from all plantations for valuable purposes. 4. Fagus sylvaticus, the beech-tree. 
Dr. Smith remarks, that the eatable chesnut having been made a distinct genus: from the 
beech hy Gzertner, “is one of those glaring errors of a great man, which should teach all na- 
turalists caution, and, more especially, candour.” 
The phenogamous plants contained in the number for March, are, 1. Chara trans/ucens, anew 
discovered British inhabitant of pools and ditches, described and figured by Vaillant, but not be- 
fore taken up, as adistinct species, by any modern botanist. 2. Agrostis canina. 3. Galium 
palustre. The doctor observes, that it is peculiar to this species, to bave two opposite leaves 
smaller, and two larger in the upper whorls, 4. Pyrus dria, Crataegus Arig, of Linnzus, and 
other modern botanists. Malus, Pyrus, Cydonia, Mespilus, Cratezgus and Sorbus, are consider- 
ed as distinct genera hy Jussieu. All belong to the same very natural order and are extremely 
difficultly defined, yet we can hardly persuade ourselves that most, if not all, of them are 
essentially different, although botanists haye not yet discovered in what the true generic 
characters consist. Dr. Smith, in which we believe he follows Gartner, reduces al! of them 
fo two genera, Mespilus and Pyrus, the former centaining the seeds within a hard shell, or 
nut, in the centre of a fleshy fruit, the latter containing them within a membransus capsule, 
also ina fleshy fruit. See the doctort’s definitions of Drupa and Pomum, in his introduction to 
Botany. However satisfactory such a division may at first sight appear, when reduced to 
practice it arranges trees in many respects so dissimilar together, that we cannot help wishing 
that Linnszeus’s division had been followed, till all the genera cauld have been more satisfac- 
torily distinguished, The plant here figured, the white beam tree is called by the Welch, for 
what reason does not appear, a Lemon Tree, ‘* whence that tender exotic has been suppo:zed, 
by ignorant travellers, to grow on the bleak crags of Penmaen Mawr. Surely such travellers 
(says Dr Smith) might be more usefully employed at home!” ‘Lhis criticism, however, ape 
pears to us somewhat too severe. Who would have been mose likely to have fallen into such 
Moxtuty Maa. No. 169. Oo an 
