were sent by M. Hartweg, who found it growing near Anganguco and Tlalpuxahua, forming a tree 50 or 60 feet high.

Juniperus taúrica. The plants of this variety were raised from seeds presented by the Hon. W. F. Strangways, and seem tolerably distinct, but certainly nothing more than a variety of J. Oxýcedrus Arb. Brit. vol. iv. p. 2494.; and, I think, should be named J. Oxýcedrus taúrica, rather than elevated to the rank of a species. May it not be J. drupàcea? Juniperus squamòsa Wall. This distinct species was raised from Indian seeds three or four years back, in the garden of the Society, and is a dwarf trailing robust species, resembling in habit J. nàna, but with the sharp-pointed leaves of the J. commùnis. It is perfectly hardy, and easily propagated by cuttings. Juniperus daurica. All the plants received at the garden, both from Messrs. Booth and others, have proved to be identically the same as J. nàna.

Juniperus tetragona Bot. Reg. Miscel. No. 102. 1839, Gard. Mag. vol. xv. p. 242. This beautiful dwarf juniper was raised from seeds transmitted to the Society by M. Hartweg, who found it on his road from Real del Monte to Chico. It has quadrangular branches and small glaucous berries, and grows 4 or 5 feet high.

Juniperus flaccida Bot. Reg. Miscel. No. 103. 1839, Gard. Mag. vol. xv. p. 241. The seeds from which this was raised were transmitted to the Society by M. Hartweg, who found it growing in the neighbourhood of Regla. It forms a small tree from 15 ft. to 20 ft. high, with weeping branches, and glaucous fruit as large as a hazel nut.

SMILA CEE. Smilax maculata Royle. This species has rather small, spotted, but very much pointed, leaves. It was raised from seeds, sent to the Society by Dr. Falconer, from the North of India.

There are still four or five other new species of Pìnus in the garden of the Society, two of which are Mexican, and one from the mountains of Honduras; but, having no names with the seeds, I refrain from saying more about them until another season. Horticultural Society's Garden, Nov. 24. 1839.

ART. II. Notice of the Reception, by Nurserymen, of a Proposal to name Trees and Shrubs in their Collections; with an Examination of a " Popular Catalogue of Trees and Shrubs," published by Mr. Rivers, Jun. By the CONDuctor.

[THE following article appeared in the Gardeners' Gazette of November 30th, with the exception of some additional matter here inserted.]

In our preceding Volume (p. 517.) we offered to lend our assistance in naming collections of trees and shrubs in public gardens and nurseries, our

object being, as there stated, to second the influence of the Arboretum Britannicum, in introducing a correct and uniform nomenclature. As it may be interesting to some of our readers to hear how these "Proposals" have been received by nurserymen, we shall here state the general result up to this time.

The only London nursery establishment that has accepted our proposals is that of Messrs. Whitley and Osborn of Fulham; and we have accordingly examined the principal genera of trees and shrubs in their nursery, and a catalogue of these, with the same names as in the Arboretum Britannicum, is now printing, and will very shortly make its appearance. It is but justice to Messrs. Whitley and Osborn to state that, before they heard of our proposal, they had carefully compared their plants with the figures in the Arboretum Britannicum, as well as with the living specimens in the Horticultural Society's garden, so that in the genera Acer, Cratæ gus, Pyrus, &c., we found scarcely a single error. On the whole, being well acquainted with the nomenclature used in all the nurseries in the neighbourhood of London, we can confidently state that the nomenclature of the Fulham Nursery is by far the most

correct.

With respect to the country nurserymen, several have corresponded with us on the subject of our " Proposal." One or two intend to have their collections completed from the Fulham Nursery, and to print catalogues with the nomenclature of the Arboretum Britannicum; others have sent up specimens to be named, and some few have sent for copies of the Arboretum, in order to ascertain the correct names of those trees and shrubs which they already have.

One or two nurserymen, both in town and country, have published short catalogues of their trees and shrubs without any authorities for the names; but of these nurserymen and their catalogues, we shall, with one exception, take no notice, because we can on no account approve or recommend them. The exception we allude to is Mr. Rivers, junior, of Sawbridgeworth, who has just printed what he calls A Popular Catalogue of Trees and Shrubs, which, in so far as it may obtain circulation, will have a tendency to defeat all the objects which we have had in view in publishing the Arboretum Britannicum. In Mr. Rivers's catalogue no distinction whatever is made between species and varieties, and no authorities are given for the names; so that, in point of real information, it is not a whit in advance of the nurserymen's catalogues of the last century. But, that we may not make any assertion respecting this catalogue, without proving what we say to be correct, we shall proceed to examine it; and, in order to give the reader Mr. Rivers's reasons for publishing it, we shall commence with the following quotation from his first page:

"In the following catalogue, the name by which the different families of plants is best known is given first in the column.

"The genus under which they are arranged in Loudon's Arboretum Britannicum is in a parenthesis to the right; and when different from that under which they are arranged here, it is given and marked ‘A. B.'

Owing to the numerous changes that have taken place in the nomenclature of plants lately, these references have become quite necessary. Those beautiful shrubs well known as Berberis fascicularis, Berberis Aquifolium, &c. &c., are now Mahonias; and cases like this are very numerous, of plants, after being cultivated for many years, and having become well known under their first Latin name, being at once transferred by botanists to some fresh genus, much to the inconvenience of cultivators. Thus, that pretty evergreen, Crataegus glauca, is now Stranvæsia glaucescens; and the confusion in the genera and species of Cratægus, Pyrus, Amelanchier, Mespilus, &c., &c., is boundless. It may serve to illustrate how far this rage for change extends, when it is stated that the well-known genus Ribes is now divided by the Continental botanists into seven distinct genera, viz. Adenobotrya, Calobotrya (under which is placed Ribes malvaceum), Chrysobotrya (which includes

Ribes aureum), Coreosma, Grossularia, Rebes, and Robsonia: under the last is ranged our Ribes speciosum. The confusion arising from this incessant change has so inconvenienced many genuine lovers of hardy trees and shrubs, persons who love their gardens, but have not leisure to refer to botanical works, that I have been induced to make this first attempt to form a Popular Catalogue, with a few leading descriptions and directions for culture."

The trite observations against changes of names contained in this most illogical paragraph only show that Mr. Rivers belongs to the stationary school; but granting, for argument's sake, that the confusion exists to which he alludes, what has his "Popular Catalogue" to do with it?

"The confusion arising from this incessant change," he says, " has so inconvenienced many genuine lovers of hardy trees and shrubs, persons who love their gardens, but have not leisure to refer to botanical works, that I have been induced to make this first attempt to form a Popular Catalogue."

From this it is presumed, we are to understand, that the "Popular Catalogue" is to lessen "the confusion" proceeding from "incessant change,' and to supply what could only before be obtained by "referring to botanical works." Now, to do this, we should think the first object would be, to endeavour to assign distinct names to distinct things; and, consequently, as species are more distinct than varieties, that they would have been named in such a manner as to show that they were species. This is always done in those botanical works to which, we presume, Mr. Rivers refers; and, in addition to this, the authorities for the names are always given. Instead of doing this, however, Mr. Rivers has not only confounded species and varieties, but he has introduced many of the latter hardly worth keeping distinct. Let us take for example the very first genus in his catalogue, which is given as under:

"No 9. to No. 13. inclusive are the only shrubs in this family they form beautiful bushes, and also pretty standards for lawns: but the extremities of their shoots require pinching off in June; the wind will not then break them, and they will put forth a crop of autumnal flowers. All the other varieties are trees adapted to the background of shrub borders."

The first remark that we have to make is on the choice of the name Acacia for this genus. It is no doubt very generally given to it, as an English name: but, as there is another genus called by botanists Acàcia, the second in Mr. Rivers's list, would it not have had a greater tendency to prevent that "confusion" which Mr. Rivers deplores, even if he did not choose to give the first its universally adopted botanical name, "Robinia," to have made choice of some of its other English names, as few plants have more popular synonymes; such as False Acacia, American Acacia, or Locust Tree. Besides this, there is a glaring absurdity in giving the Latin specific names to the popular English one; for no botanist, since the time of Linnæus, has ever called the Robinia, Acacia. With respect to the twenty-four kinds of Acacia enumerated in the above list, there are only five of them (8, 9, 11, 20, 23) that have any pretensions to be considered as species; the rest are varieties chiefly of R. Pseùd-Acàcia, but some of them, such as inérmis rùbra, pyra、

midalis, tortuosa longifòlia, variegata, &c., are so slightly marked, that, to a person wishing either to simplify or to select, they are not worth notice. Add to this, that some of the names, such as macrophylla, péndula, and variegata, belong alike to varieties of more than one species, as may be seen by referring to our Arboretum Britannicum or Hortus Lignosus.

Some persons who purchase a few trees and shrubs may be thought to care very little about their names, provided the plants are handsome; but this is by no means always the case, for the first question that is asked of the gardener, by any lady or gentleman who has been struck with the appearance of any plant, is, "What is its name?" But, supposing that some masters or mistresses care little about the names of their plants, is it nothing to prevent young gardeners from acquiring correct ideas of nomenclature ?

If Mr. Rivers, instead of giving his list of Acacias, had enumerated the same plants in the following manner, his readers would have had something tangible to go upon; and, when they ordered plants, the nurserymen applied to would at least have been able to find out what was wanted:

It appears, by this list, that no fewer than fourteen of Mr. Rivers's twentyfour kinds are varieties of the common Pseùd-Acàcia; and every one at all acquainted with that tree knows that the difference between the varieties is for the most part so very slight, as to be hardly worth keeping distinct. In short, any one may obtain as many varieties as he chooses, by sowing a bed with the seed, and selecting the most distinct of the seedlings. Is it not therefore likely to increase confusion, rather than to lessen it, to mix fourteen obscure varieties with five distinct species? If Mr. Rivers had even given all the varieties of Robínia Pseùd-Acàcia together, the confusion would have been less; but nothing can be worse than the manner in which he has jumbled them together in his list. After giving two varieties of Robínia Pseud-Acàcia, he introduces a distinct species, R. dùbia; then he gives five varieties of R. Pseùd-Acàcia, next two species and their varieties (No. 9 to No. 13, inclusive); then he recurs to R. Pseùd-Acàcia, and gives four or five more varieties of that species (for R. péndula may belong to several species); next follows the species R. hispida; and, between that and the concluding species R. viscòsa, is introduced R. variegàta, which may belong to all or any of the species, there being rose acacias with variegated leaves, as well as common acacias. What is the confusion produced in botany by the changes of names alluded to by Mr. Rivers, compared with the confusion which this mode of confounding the names of trees and shrubs and varieties and species in nurserymen's catalogues will produce in nurseries, gentlemen's gardens, and in the minds of young gardeners? The changes introduced by botanists have at least the advancement of science for their object, but what object Mr. Rivers can have in view, we leave it for our readers to determine. For our own parts, we confess it baffles our penetration; as we cannot think so ill of him as to suppose that he wishes to induce his customers to purchase, as distinct species, plants differing in little else but the names he has thought proper to assign to them; and, as to the confusion which he deplores, instead of being lessened, it appears to us to be greatly increased.

All we know is, that the advancement of science is not the object, for science Mr. Rivers avowedly sets at defiance.

We have now, we trust, proved that Mr. Rivers has "confused" the genus Robínia, instead of throwing any light upon it; and we can assure our readers that he has done the same to an equal or greater extent with every genus introduced into his catalogue.

It would take too much time to review all Mr. Rivers's lists, but we shall say a few words on his manner of treating the genus Cratæ gus, because we have pointed out the confusion which exists in that genus in nurserymen's catalogues, in our article above referred to. Of this genus Mr. Rivers enumerates forty-two kinds; and, as in the case of Acàcia and indeed, of all the other genera in his catalogue, he makes no distinction between species and varieties. Of his forty-two kinds no fewer than fourteen are varieties of the common hawthorn, some with Latin and others with English names; and these are interspersed throughout the list, so that they excite no suspicion of their being, with two or three exceptions, nearly all the same tree under different appellations. The following quotation will show the manner in which the English and Latin names of the different kinds of hawthorn are jumbled together: —

"Crimson or new scarlet, double pink, double white, Glastonbury, scarlet, upright (stricta), weeping, yellow-berried, celsiana, laciniata, lutescens, pectinata, pterifolia."

The whole of the genera in the catalogue are treated in the same manner, and English names and scientific names, species and varieties, are mixed up together in a manner that makes one laugh at the idea of the catalogue being intended to promote clearness and order. In short, if Mr. Rivers had entitled his catalogue" An Attempt to perpetuate the present Confusion which exists in the Nomenclature of Trees and Shrubs in Nurserymen's Catalogues, and to puzzle intending Purchasers," it would have given a much more correct idea of his performance than the title he has affixed to it. It is true that there is a class of men, to which Mr. Rivers seems to belong, who resolutely shut their minds against all improvements; descendants of those botanists who, in the days of Linnæus, reprobated the great Swede for his innovations and love of change, and of those politicians who, in the time of Elizabeth, fancied that the state would be ruined by Sir Hugh Myddelton's plan of bringing water to our houses by pipes, instead of water-carriers. Such men always have been, and always will be, behind their times; but mankind will not wait for them, and if they do not advance, they will be left behind. But, even supposing Mr. Rivers and his followers should adopt any particular set of names. new or old, that they may fancy, where would have been the harm of distinguishing between species and varieties? And, in short, in what respect would doing this have rendered the catalogue less "popular" or less "useful?"

We shall now attempt to show the effect Mr. Rivers's catalogue is likely to have on an intending purchaser. Suppose any person, having already a common Robínia Pseùd-Acàcia in his grounds, wishes to purchase another plant of the same genus, but, for the sake of variety, as different from the one he has as possible; at all events, a different species. How, we would ask, is he to do this from Mr. Rivers's catalogue? It is evident from the list, that the chances are two to one that he purchases, not a distinct species, but a variety of what he already has; or, supposing any person to wish to select half a dozen of different robinias, surely it would be more desirable that he should have one of each species, than that he should have them all, or nearly all, varieties of one species, which, if he follows Mr. Rivers's list, it is extremely probable will be the case.

Even a worse case might, however, occur than this. Supposing a person "loving his garden," but not having "leisure to refer to botanical works," who had the common Robínia, and who, misled by Mr. Rivers's list into a belief that Acacia was the botanical name of the genus, were to order Acàcia