Page:Miscellaneousbot02brow.djvu/45

 ON THE PROTEACEiE OF JUSS1EU. 29

2dly, He limited it, leaving unnoticed that part to which at a latter period he exclusively applied the name.

3rdly, He resumed his first opinion.

4thly, He subdivided it into two genera, giving them the same names which are adopted in the present paper.

5thly, He continued the subdivision but reversed the names, and for a reason, as it would seem, which is now known to be founded in error.

And lastly, Having acquired more perfect materials [43 and perceiving the insufficiency of his characters, he united them together, thus ending exactly where he commenced.

But, as in this he has been universally followed for nearly forty years, Protect can no longer be considered as more strongly associated with any one species of the genus than another ; and therefore this name so familiar to botanists, if the necessity of again subdividing the genus be allowed, ought certainly to be given to that part which is best known, and which contains the greatest number of published species, especially if the name be at least as applicable to this as to any other subdivision : now this part unquestionably is the Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave, the Protea of the first edition of the Genera Plantarum and Classes Plantarum, and of the present Essay.

The question respecting the application of the name Leucadendron is reducible to a smaller compass. Mr. Salis- bury is aware that the Linnean character of the genus is only applicable to Lepidocarpodendron of Boerhaave ; and therefore, consistently with the reasons which determined him in his application of the name Protea, Leucadendron ought to have been retained for that which he has called Erodendrum in Paradisus Londinensis ; and this it seems he would have done, had it not been differently used by Plukenet, whom he professes to follow in this respect. But as rejecting Linnean names when accompanied by characters, for those of Plukenet who never published a single character, is somewhat unusual, it must be supposed to have arisen from the latter author's more appropriate use of this significant name, while it may also be presumed that Linnseus's application of it is wholly unsuitable;

�� �