and loosely arranged, with none of the compactness and 
regularity for which the C. japonica is so much admired. 
The genuine species of this genus are now three; viz. 
C. japonica, C. reticulata, and the plant called in the 
gardens the double Sasanqua, and figured in this work at 
fol. 547. The following brief characters will distinguish 
these species from each other :— 
C. japonica; calyce 5-phyllo, ovario glabro. 
C. reticulata; calyce 5-phyllo colorato, ovario sericeo. 
C. maliflora; calyce polyphyllo, ovario glabro. (Camellia Sasanqua 
flore pleno. Supra, vol. 7. fol. 547.) 
The C. reticulata has the habit of C. japonica. The 
leaves are rigid, oblong, acuminate at each end, serrated, 
flat, not shining, and reticulated with deeply sunken veins. 
lowers very large, bright clear purple, with the appearance 
of a Peony. Calyx imbricated, 5-leayed, more or less 
stained with purple. Petals 17-18, somewhat repand, 
wavy, generally entire, loosely arranged. Stamens much 
shorter than the petals, at the base irregularly mona- 
delphous in several rows, the inner ones rather separate 
from the others ; they are often divided into several bundles, 
which are placed opposite the inner petals. Ovarium 
roundish, silky, 4-celled, with several distichous ovules. 
Style 4-fid, smooth. Stigmata simple. The style is ocea- 
sionally 2 or 3-fid, and the ovarium 2 or 3-celled. 
We avail ourselves of a vacant page to say a word 
or two upon the subject of species and varieties, to which 
we are led not so much by the plant now before us, as by 
a consideration of the numerous doubtful species that 
necessarily come under our notice in conducting a work 
like the present, in which garden-plants alone are intro- 
duced. It appears to us, that the most perfect. definition 
ofa species ‘that can be offered, is that which determines 
all plants to be of the same species which are capable, 
by mutual impregnation, of producing a fertile progeny : 
but it must be obvious, that however perfect this definition 
may be in theory, it is at present wholly inapplicable 
to practice, except in a few cases. Our knowledge of the 
mutual relation of plants is still so extremely incomplete, 
and the experience of cultivators has hitherto proved so 
little, that a definition of the nature of that just mentioned 
is useless for the general purposes of scientific arrangement. 
