1819. in modern scientific labours, which are too often swelled by pride into thick quartos, at the expense of the purchaser, without any material advantage. These qualifications, united to the adoption of the English language, and the vulgar Linnæan system, throughout the work, will probably entitle it to the character of a popular manual. The author informs us in his preface, that it was in deference to public opinion that he adopted them; but we regret that such a deference was carried too far; as it has obliged him to change altogether the plan which he would otherwise have pursued in the classification of our plants. Mr. Nuttall is a zealous admirer of natural affinities; he has in some instances added much to our knowledge of the peculiar affinities of some genera, and he evinces a partiality for the beautiful results of an inquiry into the philosophy of botany. He might therefore have greatly increased the value of his work, by displaying in it the series of natural order, and families already detected in the United States, and bringing a knowledge of them to a level with the understanding of students and amateurs; but he has preferred the convenience of the sexual system, because it is generally taught, as yet,among us, and its false bases are more easily recorded in the memory of common readers. We forbear to enlarge on this subject, else we might have too much to say; but we cannot dismiss it without remarking that if every writer should follow this example, no improve ment would ever be adopted in science, and knowledge would remain stationary. We are greatly surprised to find the following passage in Mr. N.'s preface. "The great plan of natural affinities, sublime and extensive, eludes the arrogance of solitary individuals, and requires the concert of every botanist, and the exploration of every country towards its completion." If every attempt to collect the knowledge acquired by the exertions of observers, is to be styled an arrogant attempt, when natural affinities and the improvement of botany is the ultimate object, then the first botanists of this age VOL. IV.-No. 111. 24 cannot escape the imputation of arrogance, which is now cast on them by Mr. N.; and Linnæus, Adanson, Necker, Scopoli, Jussieu, Decandolle, Robert Brown, Cassini, Rafinesque, &c. who have all laboured, or are yet labouring, to give us a complete plan of natural orders, must be considered as arrogant writers! Happily no enlightened botanists will assent to this assertion, and we wish it may have escaped Mr. N. inadvertently rather than consciously. We perceive that this work is very far from deserving the title of a mere compilation, like so many of its kind; but is the result of the practical observations of the author since 1809. We may therefore deem it a valuable addition to botanical knowledge, whenever the author has had an opportunity to observe the genera and species he mentions; but this has not always been the case, and in such an extensive country as ours could hardly be expected. Mr. N. has been a great traveller, as every practical botanist ought to be; he has visited particularly the region watered by the Missouri, and has ascended that noble stream as far as the Mandans. His discoveries in that quarter are recorded in this work; some of them had been communicated to, and published by Pursh, in his Flora; but they now appear in a more correct form. We regret, however, that Mr. N. takes so little notice of Mr. Bradbury, who visited the same river at the same time, and made also many interesting discoveries, several of which have been published by Pursh, and some are now described by Mr. N., and we are acquainted with many more, unnoticed by either of them, and totally new. of the new Missouri plants of Mr. N. had also been collected by Mr. Bradbury; but this fact is unnoticed in this work, while it ought to have been recorded, in justice to Mr. Bradbury's zealous exertions and modest merit. Most Our author evinces in some instances a striking neglect of the labours of some, previous writers, which were evidently within his plan. He has, for instance, omitted all the new genera of the Flora of Louisiana by Robin and Rafinesque; those of Desvaux, Decandolle, &c. and those mentioned in former numbers of this work; or he has given them new names, thus encreasing the confusion of botanical nomenclature. We shall not attempt to state our surmises on this subject; but, whatever may have been Mr. N's motives, they ought to have been stated, since a total silence might induce us to believe that he was ignorant of such accessions to our knowledge, or unwilling to notice them; either of which suppositions reflects no credit on him. Reassuming our perusal of his work, we find that it is not a mere description of our genera; but an enlarged survey of them. After the botanical English names of each genus follows a correct definition of it, in the style of Jussieu, with observations on the habit and peculiarities of it. Next a catalogue of the species known, or supposed to be known, to the author, including many new ones, of which full descriptions are given; and lastly an account of the number and geography of the foreign species belonging to the same genus. Therefore the whole includes a more correct account of our genera than had ever been published. The additions to botanical knowledge conveyed by this work are various, and include the discovery and establishment of many new genera and species, new observations on old genera, the introduction of some genera as American, and some remarks on the properties of plants scattered throughout the work. About twelve genera are introduced in the American Flora which had been already detected elsewhere by other botanists; they are Phyllactis, Persoon, Bruchmannia, Jaquin. Polypogon, Derf. Pennisetum, Richard. Orthopogon, R. Brown, Dantbonia, Decand. Aegilops, L. Koeleria, Pers. Orobus, L. Trigonella, L Philoxerus, R. r. Borkauasia, Munch, &c. Forty new genera are proposed, some of them very properly, and even on new plants; but one half of them have received objectionable names, and more than twelve are not new, since they had already been established under different names. It must be a matter of great regret that so many authors are daily increasing the perplexity attending the delightful study of botany, by proposing new genera without endeavouring to become perfectly acquainted with those established already, whence so many genera acquire two or three names; but in such a case, the anterior name, if good, must always prevail. Another source of great confusion is, that different genera receive very often a similar name from different authors; in this last case, the first genus established must retain the name, and the second receive another. These are invariable laws, and those who do not know them, or do not attend to them, are not to be considered as botanists. It will not avail, as a pretext to frame bad names, that many eminent authors are falling every where into the same predicament, and that some of them begin to think names of so little importance that they scarcely attend to the rules of botanical nomenclature; this baneful error must be corrected, and the useful fabric of universal botanical nomenclature must not be left to fall into a new chaos, similar to, or worse than thật » from which Linnæus retrieved it. Whatever be at present the conflict of opinions on the subject, we shall at all times stand advocates for the purity of nomenclature, since we consider the whole science of botany as intimately connected with it; and whatever be the annual accretion of bad names, we do not despair of extrica‣ting the science from the chaos of their synonymy, and we are satisfied that a period must come when good names and previous names must prevail over bad names and secondary names, and these latter be eliminated for ever. The real new genera introduced b☛ 1819. Sheperdia!! Xorylon, the About ten sub-genera are also proposed, many of which might, with propriety, have been marked as genera, they are: Strepsia, Mr. N. are Enslenia! Pterospora, Ortho- Maclura!! Those carpus, Polypteris, Balduina! detached from former genera are very numerous; they are generally founded on accurate observations and are very distinct from those genera, from which they are now separated with great propriety. Mr. N. has, however, thought proper to apologize for these innovations to those who Euosmus, deem improper any improvemet ʼn pro- Gymnocaulis, posed by real observers, although it is Atalanta, by such gradual improvements that the Caenotus! sciences acquire maturity and perfection. Chrysopsis! We should have seen with more satisfac- Eustemia tion an apology for the adoption of unwar- Microstylis, rantable bad names, or for the old genera We shall indicate these given as new. erroneous names, or genera, by this mark! or !! Leptandra!! separated from Veronica. - -- Stipa. Solanum. Asclepias. Do. Andromeda. Chelidonium. - Lamium. Gomphrena. - Solidago. -Coreopsis. -- - Arethusa. - Orchis. Juglans, Aplectrum ! Cleome. Solidago Malaxis. Cerallorhiza. Myriophyl- The whole number of genera enumerated in this work is about nine hundred ; and no cryptogamious genera are given except the ferns! We are exceedingly surprised to perceive, that, although the author's aim is to give us a complete account of our genera, he has omitted at least one hundred and fifty of them well known to us, among which are to be included about twenty naturalized genera. While we see in this work the genera Lolium, Stemerocallis, Arctium, &c., which are evidently naturalized, and given as such, we look in vain for Borrago, Nigella, Brassica, Symphytum, Vesicaria, Anethum, Molucella, Althea, Tragopogon, &c. which are in the same predicament! About twelve genera, mentioned by Muhlenberg as natives of the southern states and Florida, are likewise omitted; such as Tuchsia, Amyris, Coccoloba, Sesuvium, Maurandia, Clusia, Tordylium, Swietenia, &c. The following American genera of various authors appear to have escaped Mr. Nuttall's notice, or to have been neglected by him, although equally good, as any of his new genera; many more may be in the same situation unknown to us at present. Podosemum, Desvaux. Elytrigia, Desv. Cephaloris, Desv. Luzula, Decandolle. Vexillaria, Eaton. Tovara, Adanson. Lophiola, Sims. Lachnanthes, Elliot. Schubertia, Mirbel. Tulipa, L. Spartium, L. Sideranthus, Fraser. Phyllodoce, Sims. Besides all the new genera of the Flora of Louisiana, Rafinesque, and this journal, to the number of nearly one hundred ! Respecting these it may, perhaps, be proper to state, that they cannot have escaped the notice of the author; we are, therefore, at a loss to conceive why they have been neglected. At all events, the fact stamps a character of imperfection and illiberality on the otherwise valuable work before us, and its value, as a general manuel of our genera, is thereby greatly diminished. The Flora of Louisiana was published by Robin, in 1807; and a translation in English and Latin, wherein all the new genera and species it contains are exactly named and characterized, was published in New-York in 1817. That work is therefore a necessary supplement to this. The European genera Acanthus, Peucedanum, and Arelia, were introduced, for the first time, in that Flora as American; and the tropical genera Chrysophyllum, Lantana, and Cassine, as natives also of the United States. About thirty-two new genera and ten sub-genera were established in the same Flora, which are in vain looked for in Nuttall's work, and among them the genera Arnoglossum, Bradburya, Darwinia, Diototheca, Diplonyx, Dysosmon, Karpaton, Lascadium, Mnesiteon, Onosuris, &c. deserved particular attention. We find besides these a previous genus Enslenia different from the second Enslenia of Nutall, a genus Hicorius identic with the Carya of Nuttall, &c. ! new genera, some of which Mr. Nuttall has adopted, but with different names: we refer particularly to our review of Pursh's Flora, and may quote for instance our Odostemun, called since by Nuttall Mahonia! our Torylon, the Maclura, N! our Lepargyrea, called Sheperdia! our Ceranthera, called Androcera! &c. We assert, and any candid botanist will assent, that the honour of establish. ing and naming new genera and species belongs to those who first have the sagacity to abserve or detect them, and the ability to give them the first good names; priority of publication deciding in case of any equivocal circumstances. It is under such evident rules and acknowledged principles that we lay claim to the genera, of which we have hinted the propriety, and for which we have proposed good names. We shall consider, in future, whoever shall attempt to deprive us of our discoveries and previous names, by disguising our genera under different names, as plagiarists, and treat them as such, exposing their unwarrantable conduct to the public at large, and the literary community in particular; unless we have satisfactory evidence that the authors of such attempts were totally unable to acquire a previous knowledge of our labours; in which case we shall expect that they may be willing to retract such posterior names, coming in conflict with ours, as soon as they may become acquainted with them; but, if they should refuse it, or neglect it when apprised of their errors, we shall deem ourselves at liberty to expose them in the only light that such a conduct deserves. The following genera are those to which we now lay claim, as having been proposed in our former reviews of botanical works, or established in our various papers: Trisiola. Lepargyrea. Amphicarpon. Nemopanthus. Pachistima. We have established, or proposed, at Ceranthera. different times in this journal, several Osmorhiza. Polanisia. Aplostemon. Bigelowia. Dimesia. Polathera Toxylon. Ademarium And many more will be now proposed in the course of our ultimate remarks on the work before us. Our name is well known to all the botanists of the United States, and they are all aware that our labours and those of C. S. Rafinesque are identical. We, therefore, take the liberty to lay a further claim, in his name, to all the genera which he has published in the Flora of Louisiana, and to the following, published long ago, (in 1808 and 1814,) in "The New-York Medical Repository;" in "The Mirror of Sciences;" and in the "Account of Discoveries in Zoology and Botany." Phemeranthus. appears that scarcely one hundred have really been discovered by him; about thirty have been communicated to him by Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Stuve, Messrs. Collins, Fraser, Whitlow, Bradbury, &c. and more than twenty had been described before by Robin, Bigelow, Muhlenburg, Elliot, or Rafinesque, and ourselves! Yet they are introduced, in the work before us, as new, and under new names! The number of species, described by former botanists, and omitted in the total enumeration of the species of each genus, amount, on an approximate calculation, to about four hundred, including those of the Flora of Louisiana! Among the real additions made to our number of species, and now introduced by our author into notice by descriptions, we may enumerate the following: G. Aster. 6 species. Inula 3. Solidago 3. Orchis 3. Oenothera 7. Cactus 3. Silene 2. Prinos 1. Lilium 1. Erythronium 1. Trillium 1. Pyrola 1. Scutellaria 4. Cerophera. Polygala 8. All that is requested of our future writers is, that they should deal with us, as they wish to be dealt with, and not ueglect the mass of new discoveries and improvements which it has been in our power to lay before the public; they ought not to be deemed the less worthy of attention because they are commonly clothed in a plain Linnæan garb and style! The same observations and claims apply equally to species. We calculate that about one hundred and fifty are now introduced as new by Mr. Nuttall, in addition to the genera; bnt among these it Ascyrum 1. Castanea 1. Lobelia 3. Hedysarum 3. Krigia 2. Carduus 2. |