which, as it appears to us, have definitions been hitherto 
applied which can be considered positive or discriminative. 
_ The genera Cytisus, Spartium, and Genista, may be 
stated in exemplification of this remark. For ourselves, we 
are unable to perceive any real limits between them; be- 
cause, although it cannot be denied that there are certain 
general marks by which they may in many cases be distin- 
guished; yet these do not accord with the technical cha- 
racters of botanists. It may indeed be said, that Genista 
can be known by its spines; Spartiwm by its wiry or rush- 
like habit; and Cytisus by its being neither spiny nor rush- 
like; yet if these groups so distinguished be examined, no 
combination of them, according. to the received rules of 
botanical generic definition, can be, or, at least; has been 
produced. There is some evidence of the accuracy of this 
statement in Professor Link’s recent work, the Enumeratio 
Horti Berolinensis, in which the author has, with consider- 
able ingenuity, formed fresh combinations of the species of 
the above-mentioned genera, distinguishing them. by the 
following characters : 
GeEnisTA. Cal. bilabiatus, labiis 3. Legumen polyspermum compressum. 
Spartium. ' Cal. bilabiatus, labiis integris apice denticulatis. Legumen 
mono-dispermum. : 
Cytisus. Cal. bilabiatus, labiis integris aut denticulatis. 
But in order to render these definitions applicable, M. 
Link has been obliged, as it seems to us, to abandon an in- 
definite natural’arrangement for a definite (perfectly?) ‘but » 
very artificial distribution. Thus Cytisus. foliolosus and 
_ dwaricatus, with Spartium linifolium, &c. are referred to 
Genista, in which nevertheless the prickly true Genistas are 
retained; Spartium junceum removed into a distinct genus; 
and Spartium scoparium, multiflorum, &c. transferred to 
Cytisus along with Cytisus Laburnum. J 
Tinley 
