102 
omiflion could anfwer ? Could I volun- 
tarily make my work defeQive ? Would 
Not, on thé conirary, my vanity be flat- 
tered by making it as rich as poffible ?— 
Bot is it not. more reafonable to believe I 
take fuch plants not to be truly wild, or 
the difcovery of them not to be well au- 
thenticated ? If fo, I may be miftaken, 
bat could have no motive purpolely to 
er. The above remark feems made by a 
perfon whofe vanity has been hurt by hav- 
iig his ‘uppofed difcoveries rejected.— 
This may appear when he names the 
plants in queftion ; but if he infifts on any 
one re{pecting which I have given my 
reafons for rejeétion already, I hope the 
public will difpeafe with my farther reply. 
Et is certain that the writer of a Flera is 
obliged to be on his guard againft fuppofed 
difcoveries of thiskind, and he is in much 
greater danger of admitting than of re- 
jeCting too much, cn account of the acci- 
dental introduét-on, for one feafon per- 
haps, of annual plants, by means of ex- 
otic feeds ('o which I have prefumed to 
attribute the mention of Althea hirfuta 
in Mr. Symons’s Synopfis, p. 200), or of 
garden-plants thrown cut with rubbihh, or 
difperfed by other caufes. On this point 
furely it is right to be wary ; nor can I 
now recojles&t any reprehenfible omiflion of 
whicivl have been guilty ; certainly none 
has‘originated in undue miftruft, ftiil lefs 
in jealouly of any little honours which 
fuch dilcoveries might confer. How dif- 
ficult it is to aveid giving offence in fuch 
cafes, even with the greatett defire of do- 
ing juftice, may be {cen by a letter in the 
very next page of your laft Magazine to that 
which contains Mr. R. B.C.’s letter. I 
hope I may, without any. want of refpect, 
leave that fubject ‘entirely im the hands of 
Dr. Turtos and Mr. Lucas. 
- One accufation only remains to be no- 
ticed, which is of a more ferious caft, as. 
the writer is pleafed to charge me with 
plagiarifm and finefle—the firft, as I con- 
ceive, being fynonymous with theft, the 
Jatter with falfehood.. To this I diidain 
» any other reply than what may be gather- 
ed- from the following remarks, wisich, 
through your means, I wifh to lay before 
the public, concerning the {pecific charac. 
ters of plants. 
- Among the older botanifts, it was ufual 
to diltinguith the fpecies of plants by a 
fort of definition, of a greater or leflernum- 
ber of words, which ferved gs its name. 
Linnzus’s. {pecific ea ae were at firft 
intended as equivalent to thele, and to be 
z \ 
Dr. Smith’s Reply to R. H. G. 
[March ds 
ufed as names. For greater convenience - 
in remembering and pronouncing them, 
he therefore limited them to twelve 
words ; and though this original defign 
is now fuperfeded by his, or perbaps Rivi- 
nus’s, happy invention of trivial or fpeci- 
ficnames, by which we name each fpecies 
by a fingle werd, all. the moft judicious 
practical naturalifts find it expedient to 
keep almoitt eutirely to the Linnean limits 
in the fpecific character, as the mind can 
hardly at one view comprehend, and make 
a dec'five comparifon, between a greater 
number of words than the above. When 
fpecific characters are longer, they become 
defcriptions, and lofe their terfenefs and 
clearnefs, Linnzeus has declared-a good 
fpecific character to be the ftrength or 
perfection of the art (artis robur), and an 
embarratied er enfeebled one, drawn out 
into laboured inanity, firikingly marks 
iis decline. 
. The firft followers of Linnzus, when 
they compofed Floras, religioufly copied 
his {pecifie characters for their plants, 
even when thofe characters did not always 
accord with the fuppofed correfponding 
fpecies. Mr. Hudton, however, in fuch 
cafes, now and thea ventured to form a 
new one, always fubjoining the Linnzan 
definition entire. The multitude of new 
difcoveries fince Linnzeus wrote, makes it 
neceffary frequently to alter or augment 
his characters, for the fake of contraftiag 
them with thofe of new fpecies ; and Pro- 
feflor Vahl bas rightly infifted on the pro- 
priety of this being done by all who pub- 
lib {uch new difcoveries. 
I therefore thought it peculiarly incum- 
bent on me, having the original {pecimens 
before me from which Linnzeus made his. 
charaCters (fo that I have often traced the - 
origin of otherwife unaccountable errors), 
and having, at the fame time, native Bri- 
tifh plants in my hands, to ftudy critically 
every {pecific character, and alter or new 
model it where neceflary, though as feldom 
as potible. Nor did I decline taking any 
hist from other writers, where I found it 
ufeful to do fo. Asareference to the 
page ci Linnzus where each original cha- 
racter is to be found, is every where fub- 
jowed,.as well as to every other book I 
have coniulted, how can there be any de- 
ception or placiarifm in the cafe? It is 
poflible, indeed, that I may have fome- 
times hit .on a charaéter, which, in the 
multiplicity of botanical works, may have 
becn noticed before in fome one I have not 
happered to confult. Thus poeis having 
-uncon{ciouily 
