1804.] 
language is not improved by a fociety of 
** reformifis,” but by good writers, feel- 
Ing their own powers, and the fenfe of the 
public, as they go on. Hence in my own 
time great alterations have been made 
and accepted, and more will be made, 
probably without the affistance of Mr. 
Caley ; nor will the labours of Profeflor 
Martyn, the Litchfield Society, or Dr. 
Withering, be defpifed by thofe who may 
be enabled hereafter, by a concurrence of 
favourable circumitances, to go beyond 
them. 
Mr, Caley’s remarks under page 145, 
and elpecially his firft letter, have led me 
into a longer difcuffion than I defigned. 
1 fhall now conclude it by afking that 
writer, whether the latter part of thefe 
remarks jufily refers to dny of my publi- 
cations? If fo, I fhall gladly correé& 
them; for I have not the vanity to fup~ 
pofe them incapable of amendment. 
I fhail as briefly as poffible reply to 
the remaining criticifms on the Flora. 
_ Page 230, The hairy ftamina of 4na- 
gallis arvenfis, as well as in A, tenella, 
are there de{cribed ; and if in the firft 
inftance’the hairs are not faid to be joznt- 
ed, that omiffion is of little moment, fuch 
a ftruéture being very common, if not al- 
moft univerfal, in thefe appendages to 
plants. 
Page 261. Lonicera Periclymenum is 
correctly deicribed in the Flora as hav- 
ing flores ochroleuci, rubicundi, (yellowith- 
white flowers, partly, or occafionally red- 
dith): they are frequently deftitute of all 
rednefs. | 
Page 267. The undivided ovate leaves 
of the ivy are by no means floral leaves, 
but belong to the upper branches, which 
do not cling to any fupport. The pro- 
pofed fpecific charaéter, therefore, is er- 
roneous in fact and phrafeology ; I may 
add, in punuation, if that be not the 
printer’s fault. 
Page 392. The red nerves of Rumex 
obiufifolius are not mentioned, for one plain 
reaion, which will always be my guide, 
that I do not find them commonly to 
exit. 
Page 410. The f{pecific characters ef 
Epilobium birfutun and tetragounm are not 
implicitly copied from Custis. A dif. 
ferent arrangement of words wiil be found 
in the former, and a moft material cor- 
rection in the latter. Iztegerrimus is not 
fynonymous with zediqifus. The latter 
expreffes a leaf, or other part, not parted 
into lobes or fegments; the former is 
ufed in contradiftinétion to a ferrated or 
Rotched margin or extremity. Nor fhould 
I deferve cenfure if thefe or any ether fpe- 
Leiter from Dr, Smith. 
379 
cific characters were literally copied, with. 
out quotation, from Curtis, or any one 
elfe.. It is my plan to fubsnit every cha; 
racter to the teft of examivation, and thus, 
it becomes my own. ‘The curious may 
find out where I agree with other writers. 
Why fhould I alter what is good, merely 
to feem more learned than others? Ory 
why refer to others for what I anlwer for 
myfelf? Under fome fpecies of Palygonum, 
indeed, I copy Curtis’s characters, with 
his name fubjoined; becaufe in. thofe 
cafes he had examined the fubject better 
than I had been able todo. Is the critic, 
with all his compliments, really fo in- 
adequate to appreciate my character as to 
charge me with plagiarifm, or with dif- 
fembling the merits of my fellow-labour- 
ers, efpecially of Mr. Curtis, once my 
friend, often my inftructor and my model, 
and by his own mifconception only my 
enemy ?—Sve Preface to the feventh vol. 
of Engiith Botany. 
Page.425. I have always found the 
little -hoilows in the feeds of Polygonum 
lapathijolium, pointed out in the ore 
Londinenfis, a good mark. If any fup- 
poled varieties have it not, further exami- 
nation may prove them difiinct {pecies, 
‘The fpotted-ftalked plant is made only a 
variety in Fi. Brit, 
Page gor. Here we findan inftance of 
great fenfe and judgment, but we are ia- 
debted-to Scopoli, not to Mr. Caley, 
That I was aware of the difficulties at- 
tending this Ceraftium, appears from my 
having thought it neceflary in the defcrip- 
tion to fay, ‘* flamina femper 10, fryli 5.” 
Let me beg the critic’s attention toa re- 
mark at the bottom of page 538, in my 
Englijh Botany, a work he has not as yet 
deigned to illuftrate. 
Page 596. Here the fubject of the 
Ranunculus aquairtis, with long leaves, is 
again brought forward. It is a [pecies 
which the writer feems to have taker 
under his e{pecial protection, and periaps 
it may afford matter for a differtarion as 
edifying as that of Gefner on the Ka- 
nunculus bellidiforus. (See Mr Konig is 
his Annals of Botany, 368).. Our cri- 
tic’s opinion is. ftrengthengd by that of 
“¢ feveral of the more eminent, continental 
botanifts,” among whom he naines Wiil- 
denow and Desfontaines, conf<ffing at the 
fame time, that.others, a. Wiggen ( Wig- 
gers), Roth, and Sibtnorp, hive “very 
injudicioufly ’’. divided this untortunate 
fpecies into four. I fhall baryafs it no 
further, but leave it to the exam:nation 
of thofe who have more leifure than my- 
felf, as. well as lefs food fo, daiisty their 
botanical appetite. I fhall, however, te- 
3 D2 rioully 
‘ 
