1816 deviates from the English copy in Five Chronological Cycles, twelve Ember days, and twelve moveable Feasts." This declaration of Mr. Hitchcock at once exposes him. It is not true; before three respectable persons I have compared my edition with the English, and find it corresponds in every particular. He then goes on to say that, in my Almanack for 1817, I have used the sign Virgo for that of Scorpio. There is such a similarity between the two characters as to offer some excuse for this neglect, and he admits, as a reason why he discovered it, the fact that it was not possible.

He then endeavours to impress on the public the belief of his having corrected all the errors in the English Nautical Almanack for 1818, merely because he has, in the pursuit of his business, discovered a few of minor importance. The fact is, I republish the Nautical Almanac for the use of Navigators, and I offer "ten dollars for the discovery of an error in the figures." I commenced the work in 1811, and in no instance have I printed a wrong figure; the pages he refers to are used generally by Astronomers, and although I would willingly bestow every reasonable attention to make those pages correct, that he might copy rather than be at the trouble of calculating, still I would rather ten errors should escape me there, than one by which the mariner should be deceived. I am led to this remark by his shameful neglect, in the examination of that Almanack, and shall point out errors which I have corrected in my edition, of more importance to the mariner than all the services he ever rendered that useful class of society. The errors

are, page 7, Jan. 25, Proportional Logarithms for noon, for 5974 read 4974. Page 50, May 8, Equation of time, for 4, 43, 6 read 3, 43, 6. Page 52, lat. Georgian, for 8, 4. read 0, 4, Page 53, May 29, Longitude noon, for 0. 7. S. 25, read 0. 7. 8. 25. Page 98, Sept. 27, Sun's long. for 7.3.44. 57, read 6. 3. 44. 57. Page 103, Proportional Logarithm for noon, for 4033 read 4833; for midnight, fer 4647 read 4947. Page 115, Oct. 9, Moon's Semidiameter (noon) for 1557 read 1657. These are errors important to be corrected, and it is a duty incumbent on every one to lend his aid toward perfection, and far more praise-worthy to admonish, than to draw a publisher before the public, who at least aims to deserve a share of general patronage. To close, the celebrated NEVIL MASKELYNE, Astronomer Royal, has been dead several years; since then the Nautical Almanack has not been so correctly publish. ed. We take it "for better for worse," and where an error is discovered, correct it; and I now challenge Mr. Hitchcock to point out one instance where I have deviated from the copy in a figure. If he does, he shall have the reward offered, which appears to be his aim. I will also thank him to publish the many letters he has received from me, and which are so "evasive and unsatisfactory." Perhaps others may understand them if he cannot. I have one from him, but, I shall only say that it has no tendency to prove that perfection is the lot of man. Respectfully yours,

December 1, 1817.

EDM. M. BLunt.

EVER

VER since the discovery of North America, the vegetable productions of this Continent have attracted the notice of European writers and botanists, travellers, and settlers. The Potato, Maize, and Tobacco, were in the first instance introduced into Europe, afterwards the stately trees and handsome shrubs which adorn our forests, and lastly most of our ornamental plants; and their value was much increased by the facility of their cultivation and naturalization. Gardeners and collectors have often been sent from England, France, and Germany, expressly for the purpose of collecting

living plants and seeds, and many enlightened travellers have visited North America with the special intention of studying the plants which it produces. Through the exertions of those worthy collectors and visiters, our vegetables became gradually known, Cornut began by describing those of Canada; Banister, Mitchell, and Clayton, those of Virginia; Catesby, and Walter, those of the Carolinas; Cutler those of Massachusetts, &c. Linneus introduced into his works those collected and communicated by Kalm, Bartram, and Colden, from Pennsylvania and New-York; Aiton des

cribed those cultivated in the Royal Garden of Kew, in England: Wildenow, those sent him by Muhlenberg, &c. But notwithstanding the merit of those labours, they were only partial, and no general work on the vegetable productions of North America had been attempted, except a mere catalogue by Forster, in 1777, when the Flora borealiAmericana of Andrew Michaux was published at Paris in 1803. This author had travelled many years in North America, from Florida to Hudson Bay, where he was sent by the French government to collect for the Botanical garden of Paris. His work was a great addition to the Botanical knowledge of America, but was not exempted from defects; many well known plants were omitted, very few cryptogamous were described, and not a single Fungus; many good names were changed without necessity, several new genera were badly named, &c. But, nevertheless, the variety of new genera and new species described, the new observations on the old species, and the collective utility of such a general work, still rendered it the best manual on our indigenous botany.

Eleven years afterwards, a second Flora of North America is printed in England by Frederick Pursh, which now claims our attention; but in this interval many other valuable additions to our Botany were published by Muhlenberg, Wildenow, Persoon, Bosc, Michaux, Junr. Turpin, Robin, Rafinesque, Eddy, &c. which are more or less connected with the above work, although often omitted in it, and shall therefore claim likewise a share of our notice.

This work is dedicated to the Vice President of the Linnean Society of London, Mr. A. B. Lambert, who has patronised the undertaking, and at whose expense it was printed, a conduct deserving the thanks of all the botanists both in Europe and in our country.

We shall in the first instance offer a remark on the title of this work, which may likewise apply to the Flora of Michaux, and several other works on North America. A Flora is a botanical work of a local nature, whose object is to acquaint us with, or describe the plants of a peculiar district, state, or country. A Flora of North America ought therefore to enumerate the plants found all over that Continent, while Mr. Pursh only pretends to acquaint us with the plants of the United States, Florida, Canada, &c. He ought to have reflected that North America includes, besides, the Mexican

provinces, the Antilles or West Indian Islands, the British possessions, New Siberia, &c. This oversight, is however so common, that it escapes general notice, and has perhaps originated in the wrong belief that the United States form the whole of North America, or in the want of a specific national name; but until such a name be adopted, every local work on the United States ought to bear that name, instead of the enlarged and extensive appellation of North America. In his preface Mr. Pursh gives a long account of his labours, while in the United States, from 1799 to 1811, and of the ample means within his power, both in America and Europe, for the completion of this Flora. It appears that he lived mostly in the U. S. in the humble character of gardener to Mr. Hamilton of Philadelphia, and Dr. Hosack of New-York, or was for some years employed by D. Benj. Barton, as a collector of plants. He travelled from North Carolina to Maine, but never visited the southern nor western States. The writer of this article knew him in 1804, while he was Mr. Hamilton's botanical gardener, and he appeared to be intelligent and zealous in his profession, but not equal to the task he has since undertaken; the same opinion is entertained by those who knew him in New-York, at a later period, when he had in charge the Elgin garden. His materials for a general Flora of the U. S. were very scanty when he left this country for Europe, and therefore the Flora which has since' appeared must have been compiled in England, of which we have sufficient proofs by accounts from thence, and by the whole tenor of the work. It has however received the kind assistance of Mr. Lambert, who appears to have done for Pursh what Richard did for Michaux, helping him in the arrangement, synonimy and definitions of the species, &c.

The sources which Mr. Pursh acknowledges to have consulted in the United States, are the herbariums of Messrs. Enslen, Lyon, Peck, Lewis, Leconte, &c. (but he does not even mention those of Dr. Eddy, and Mr. Rafinesque,) and in England the Herbariums of Clayton, Walter, Catesby, Plukenet, Pallas, Bradbury, Nuttall, Menzies, Sherard, Lambert, Banks, &c. this fact conveys an idea of much labour and investigation. By the list of authors and works consulted or quoted, it would appear that Mr. Pursh has been at least very indu3trious and inquisitive, but when we reflect that he has totally neglected the

tracts published in the United States, by Drs. Brickell, Cutler, Eddy, Mitchell, Mr. Rafinesque, &c. besides the travels and works of Schoepf, Castiglione, Bosc, Desvaux, Robin, &c. published in Europe, we must form a different judgment, and tax him with wilful neglect in the most important instance.

This Flora being ushered forth with an apparent confidence, and with the character of an elaborate classical work, deserves still more an accurate investigation and criticism. In Botany, as in all the sciences which are daily improving, the last works are always reckoned the best this Flora will therefore be the manual and director of the American botanists, probably for many years to come, or until a better one is undertaken, and as it is likely to carry with it a great authority, perhaps more than it really deserves, it becomes incumbent on us to warn them of the omissions, errors, mistakes, misnomers, and plagiarisms

which it contains.

It will be proper to acquaint our readers first with the general tenor of the work, which we shall endeavour to do as concisely as possible, since such among them as will feel the greatest share of interest in our remarks, probably possess the volume, and are therefore already acquainted with their scope.

The whole work contains about 3500 species of plants, including 82 in a particular supplement; but exclusive of the cryptogamous, which are omitted, except the ferms. Michaux's flora contained about 2000 species only, which shows what a rapid increase in the knowledge of our plants has taken place within a short period; but that number might have been carried to above 4000 if all the phenogamous plants omitted by Pursh had been added; and to 5000 at least, if he had included all the cryptogamous. About 370 new species are introduced here for the first time; but among those about 100 new species were discovered by Capt. Lewis, about 45 by Mr. Bradbury, about 10 new species by Mr. Enslen, about 20 new species by Mr. Lyon, about 18 new species by Mr. Nuttall, about 15 new species by Mr. Menzies, about 15 new species by Mr. Frazer, 12 new species by Mr. Rafinesque, 2 new species by Dr. Eddy, and about 40 by Messrs. Vanvleck, Kinn, Nelson, Peck, Pallas, Mason, Miller, Leconte, Muhlenberg, Colmaster, Tilden, Bartram, Mackenzie, &c. leaving therefore only 88 species, or thereabouts, as really discovered by Mr. Pursh: he will deserve suf

ficient credit for these, without assuming. those which belong to others. Many species, and even a few genera, although not new, are introduced for the first time in the Flora of the United States; among the genera the following deserve notice, Androsace, Alchemilla, Öxytropis, Glycirhiza, Lotus, Cristaria, Elæagrus, Diapensia, Chondrilla, Santolina, Thalia, Diotis, Sehizea, Chiococca, Ceropegia, Ervum, Cytisus, Evolvulus, Phellandrium, Sibbaldia, Fritillaria, Peplis, Tigarea, Calligonum, Myagrum, Cheiranthus, &c.

These plants are arranged according to the sexual system of Linneus, with some trifling alterations: strange as it may seem, notwithstanding the superstitious veneration which the disciples of Linneus entertain for that most trivial part of the labours of that great man, almost every one of them endeavour to alter or mend that falling system: they may be compared to masons endeavouring to sustain, by patch-work, an old building erected by an able architect with bad materials, and now falling to ruins. Of all the alterations ever proposed to the sexual system, that of Brotero in the Flora Lusitanica is the best, or in fact the only good one; but as it reduced at once the 24 classes of Linneus into 12, it was considered as too bold by the patchers, and neglected by them. Let us hope that the labours of Jussieu, Decandolle, Brown, and Rafinesque, will soon supersede those wretched attempts.

The definitions or characters of the genera and species are given in Latin ; but the observations on the species are in English: the former appear to be elaborate, and often accurate; the synonimy is not extensive, but selected, and rather deficient in American authors. In the observations, many commendable and useful remarks are introduced, such as the states, situations and soils where the plant grow, the months in which they blossom, the colour of the flowers, the uses of the plant, some vulgar names and several other additional illustrations.

Twenty-four plates, in which 27 new plants are figured, adorn this work; but many appear to have been drawn on dry specimens, and not very accurately.

Eight new genera are proposed in this Flora, Calochortus, Lewisia, Clarckia, Chimaphila, Ammyrsine!! Seymeria, Bartonia!! Apios; but a great many more could have been established with great propriety, as will be perceived by our subsequent remarks on those genera.

Whoever undertakes a general Flora, must avail himself of all the previous la.

bours on the same subject: omissions, unless wholly unavoidable, become errors, and are always defects. Mr: Pursh might not be acquainted with the catalogue of the plants of North America, by the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, although published in 1813, (one year previous to his own Flora,) owing to the war; yet we find in that Catalogue, which may be deemed a synopsis of our genera, more than 20 of our phenogamous genera, totally omitted by Pursh, such as Rivina, Fuchsia, Amyris, Tordylium, Elliotea, Coccoloba, Cesalpinia, Quassia, Swietenia, Winterania, Sesuvium, Maurandia, Carica, Clusia, Hippomane, Epidendrum, &c. This omission was perhaps unavoidable, owing to Mr. Pursh's being unacquainted with the fact of their having been found on our continent many years ago; but even in this case ignorance stamps a degree of imperfection on the whole work, and this stigma will increase, together with our astonishment, when we shall perceive him neglecting other labours, published while he was in America! Of the discoveries and additions published since 1814, by Messrs. Bigelow, Barton, Elliot, Eaton, Rafinesque, &c. he cannot be presumed to have had a previous knowledge, and even if he had, no blame could be attached to him for neglecting them, since strict justice only requires that botanists should acknowledge and adopt what has been published before the period or date of their own works, or such unpublished discoveries as may be communicated to them for publication.

Among other phenogamous genera omitted by Pursh, the following may deserve attention, Acanthus, Chrysophyllum, Peucedanum, Cassine, Aretia, Lantana, &c. mentioned by Robin in his Flore Louisianaise, Paris, 1807; a work with which he appears to be totally unacquainted: a synoptical compendium of it has lately been published in New-York, in which 50 new genera, and nearly 200 new species unknown to Pursh, have been established by Rafinesque,

Moreover, the new genera Diphryllum, Phyllepidum, Shultzia, Odonectis, Tsotria, &c. and PURSHIA, dedicated to himself!! published by C. S. Rafinesque in the Medical Repository of New-York, 1808, No. 44, of which Mr. Pursh must have had knowledge, and has wilfully omitted for some purpose which can only be guessed at. He has introduced in his Flora many of the naturalized plants, which form an important feature in the botany of every country, but has omitted as many more, since he has neglected

the following naturalized genera! Phyllirea, Syringa, Borrago, Arctium, Vesicaria, Symphytum, Hyacinthus, Nigella, Adonis, Hemerocallis, Anethum, Molucella, Althea, Tragopogon, Scabiosa, Calendula, Spinacia, Cucurbita, Celosia, &c. and many more, most of which are enumerated by Rafinesque, in a dissertation on the naturalized plants of the U. S. in the Medical Repository, for 1811, No. 56. The following genera which had been naturalized, but of which some species have since been found really native, have also been neglected! Spartium, Lolium, Nyctago, Brassica, &c.

If therefore nearly 100 phenogamous genera really found within our territory are omitted and neglected by Mr. Pursh, we may easily conjecture how many species must be in the same predicament. Upon a slight research, it appears that he has neglected to notice more than 100 species of well known plants, besides about 60 new species described by Mr. Rafinesque, about 40 new species described by Messrs. Cutler, Brickell, Schopf, Bosc, Desvaux, Bartram, &c. about 200 new species of the Flora of Lousiana, and more than 200 new species noticed by Dr. Muhlenberg, making together an aggregate number of above 600 phenogamous species known or published previous to 1814. To which might be added, many more discovered, previous to that period, by Messrs. Elliot, Leconte, Bradbury, Eddy, Torrey, Rafinesque, Whitlow, Baldwin, Collins, &c. but not yet published.

It is hardly to be supposed that he was ignorant of so many additions to American Botany, of which a great proportion had been published in New-York, while he was in that city or its neighbourhood, and some published or republished in Paris! for instance the new genera and species of Mr. Rafinesque after being published in New-York in the Medical Repository, were afterwards printed in the first volume of the journal of Botany, by Desvaux, in Paris! Those omissions are therefore unaccountable, unless we suppose that Mr. Pursh has omitted them in order to set off with more advantage his own discoveries, or rather to hide those which he has copied or stolen from them, that he might not be compelled to disclose the sources from which he derived such plagaries.

We are sorry to be compelled to tax this author with such despicable motives; but we do not perceive any other to which it might be ascribed, and we have

abundant proofs that he has concealed circumstances relating to some of the new plants, which he has taken the liberty to describe as his own, while he knew well, that the first discovery, and even publication did not belong to him; he has even in some instances dared to publish them again under the very same names given them by the original discoverers, while sometimes he has concealed his pilferings under different names.

It will be necessary to notice such of those daring attempts as we have been able to detect.

The Drosera filiformis was discovered in 1802 by C. S. Rafinesque in a journey to the sea-shore of New-Jersey, in company with Col. Thomas Forrest, communicated in 1803 to Dr. Muhlenberg, to Mr. Hamilton, to whom Mr. Pursh was then gardener, and to Mr. Pursh himself, and published in 1808 in the Medical Repository, in 1809 in the Journal of Botany, &c. nevertheless, Mr. Pursh introduces it in his Flora, in 1814! as a new species, under the same name, stating that he had discovered it in the same place, near Tuckerton, in 1805! and without noticing in the least the above circumstances. A plate of that plant, engraved by said Rafinesque, and intended to form a part of a selection of rare American plants, had been sent in 1808 to Dr. Mitchill of New-York, and is now deposited in the Lyceum of natural history of N. Y. together with many other plates of new plants.

Dr. Eddy of New-York, published in 1807, in the Medical Repository of N. Y. a catalogue of the plants of Plandome on Long-Island, where he characterizes a new species of Gerardia, which he calls G. glauca; Mr. Pursh seven years after wards describes the same plant, under the name of Gerardia quercifolia, without noticing at all the former name and claim of Dr. Eddy; but he does not omit to state that he has ascertained this plant to be the same as the Rhinanthus virginicus of Linneus, although it is a real Gerardia.

In an excursion to New-Jersey made by Dr. Eddy, Mr. Leconte, and Mr. Pursh, a very rare new species of Schizea was discovered by Dr. Eddy; Mr. Pursh did not find a single specimen; but one was lent to him, with a positive injunction that Dr. Eddy meant to publish that species: however Mr. Pursh has published it under the name of Shizea pusilla as his own discovery.

From the above instances some idea may be formed of Mr. Pursh's delicacy

and liberality; it might be tedious to enter at length on the particulars of each pilfering he is guilty of; we shall therefore forbear to dwell on them, but shall merely enumerate them.

The Ceanothus herbaceus of Rafinesque, Med. Rep. has been described by him as a new species under the name of C. perennis.

The Asclepias viridiflora of Raf. Med. Rep. has been given as a new species by Pursh under the same identical name!

The Allium triflorum of Raf. Med. Rep. is likewise described, under the same name, as his own discovery!

The Alisma subcordata of Raf. Med. Rep. is the Alisma trivialis of this Flora!

The Phemeranthus teretifolius, a new genus mentioned by Rafinesque in his observations on American botany, Med. Rep. 1811, and completely described in 1814 in the Mirror of Sciences, has been named Talinum teretifolium by Pursh, although it differs from Talinum (or rather Talinium) by having a calyx diphyllous, and only one stigma!

The Chironia amana of Raf. Med. Rep. has been named Sabbattia stellaris, without reference to the former name.

The Gerardia maritima of Raf. in Med. Rep. is stated to be a variety crassifolie of G. purpurea, but without reference.

The Tsotria medeoloicles of Raf. in Med. Rep. is introduced as a N. Sp. of Arethusa medeoloicles, without reference, &c.

The errors, misnomers, and blunders, scattered through the whole work, are numberless, and it is sometimes very difficult to perceive or detect them; some of them are copied from authors of some respectability, which render them still more dangerous, as botanists of a common stamp are very easily led to believe, that what is adopted by an eminent author, cannot be erroneous, errors are therefore followed by the crowd of copists and compilers, without ex ercising any criticism. It would be well if such authors would read at least the philosophia and critica botanica of Linneus, which is the spelling-book of botany; but it is much to be doubted whether Mr. Pursh ever read it, when he has given to one of his new genera the abominable name of Ammyrsine, which is obviously erroneous, for three different reasons, according to the rules established by Linneus himself. That name contains the linnean generic name of Myrsine entire, with the addition of a syllable. 2d. It might be conceived to be a compound of two old generie

1st.