method, unless seeds are produced. Bomàrea (Mirbel) hirtella Penny, Sweet Fl. Gard. sub. Alstromèria, A. ovàta Hook. B. M. and Lod. Cab. - B. acutifòlia Penny, Sw. Fl. Gard. t. 77. sub. Alst.-B. oculàta Penny, Lod. Cab. 1851. sub. Alst. We follow Dr. Lindley's suggestions, in Bot. Reg. t. 1410., in restoring Mirbel's name for this well-marked genus. It is, indeed, surprising that the species composing it should ever have been referred to Alstromèria. Salisbury (Hort. Tr., vol. i. p. 337.) gave the name Vandèsia to this genus, but subsequently to that of Mirbel. G. Penny, A.L.S. ART. V. Retrospective Criticism. CORRECTIONS. In Vol. VII. p. 665. line 33., for "ten miles S.W. of Philadelphia" read "three miles S.W. of Philadelphia." In Vol. VIII. p. 152. line 7. from the bottom, for "Hertford" read "Hartford." In Vol. VIII. p. 153. line 24., for "Marcetta" read "Marietta.”—J. M. Philadelphia, April 19. 1833. In Vol. IX. p. 369. line 7., for "it" read "they;" and in line 8., for "enumerates " read "enumerate." A Landscape-Gardening Impostor. We have just been informed that a person, desirous of employment, advertised in the Leeds Mercury, in February, 1832, for business, stating that he was "a scientific landscapegardener, and had had the advantage of having been employed by Mr. Loudon for five years, and by four other rural architects in the south." We think it right to state that the person alluded to never was employed by us in that capacity. We have also learned that some persons, both tradesmen and amateurs, have made use of our name in various ways, to forward their own purposes; and we now give notice that the next instance of the kind we hear of, we will publish the names of the parties. - Cond. Another Item on Gern, the Itinerant Vender of Floral Rarities. (p. 230.) – Mr. Greene is a gardener living near Newnham, close by Cambridge, and does a great deal of business in flower plants. In transacting some business with him last Saturday, he asked me if I had been taken in by the person who sold Mr. and several others some plants which are expected to be worth nothing. Mr. Greene met him by appointment at the Black Lion, in Silver Street, where and when, after endeavouring to sell him some ranunculuses, &c., he told Mr. Greene that Mr. Loudon, two years ago, valued his collection of tulips at 18,000l.!! He gave Mr. Greene his address as follows:-" William Gern, Millbank Nursery, Aberdeen." J. D. sen. Waterbeach, near Cambridge, March 20. 1833. Acquiring the earliest Information of Improvements in Gardening. — I was much pleased with an article in your last (Vol. VIII. p. 645.), on the subject of gardeners visiting each other's gardens in order to improve themselves, as well as to make them desirous to equal each other in the various productions of the garden; as it is impossible for any man to keep pace with the improvements of the times, if he never stirs out of his own premises. There is also another thing which your correspondent has overlooked, or has himself been so fortunate as not to feel the disadvantage of, but which, nevertheless, is a disadvantage to which many a gardener is subject; I mean, that of not receiving early information of things important to be known to them. Many things appear in your Magazine which require the gardener's immediate knowledge of, in order to profit by them, without losing a season; yet, so blind are many gentlemen to their own interest, that, after its publication, they will keep it for a month or two without showing it to their gardeners; and if you meet with some gardeners whose employers take it in, and ask them what they think of such an article, the answer is, they have not seen it. There are others who will grant the privilege of looking over it, but it must be returned as soon as possible, to be stuck on the shelves of the library, for no other purpose but to be looked at, not into. Thus, the gardener cannot give it that attention it demands, and, not having it to refer to as occasion may require, he is obliged to make short extracts of what he considers of most consequence to him in his situation, or else he must forget it. I would therefore recommend to gentlemen, as the cost is so trifling to them, that they should purchase an extra-copy, for a present to the gardener; which mark of good nature on his part would not fail to produce a good feeling in the servant towards his employer. I am, Sir, yours, &c. - A Friend to Improvement. Dec. 29. 1832. On the fraudulent Practices of Gardening Authors. (p. 116.) — Sir, In p. 116. I observe some remarks upon a communication I had sent you (Vol. VIII. p. 289.), exposing the frauds of some writers on horticulture; something intended, no doubt, by its author, a Constant Reader, as a refutation of what I there have stated, and savouring not a little of that asperity which he condemns as forming a leading feature in my paper. Your Constant Reader says, that he thinks some other instance than the one I chose would have looked more "charitable and consistent in the eyes of the public." This is his opinion, and he doubtless deserves the praise of the public for his superior taste and discrimination, as well as for his charitableness and consistency; but it happens to be only his notion, and nothing more; and as every writer has an undoubted right to choose his own examples for the illustration of his subject, your Constant Reader has no right to dictate; and, of course, we may set this down as a gratuitous and very unnecessary advice. Your Constant Reader further accuses me boldly of ingratitude. I would ask him how does he come to know this? He cannot tell the particular circumstances under which I was placed, or in how far these circumstances were calculated to call forth grateful feelings from me towards Mr. Stewart. This assertion, so far as he can know, is completely his own surmise, and deserves to fall upon his own head. He says, also, that I have thrown out "vile and ungrateful aspersions" upon Mr. Stewart's character. This is a false accusation, in as far as he cannot prove, and does not even attempt to prove, that I have said any thing untrue of Mr. Stewart; and, by necessity, this assertion must also fall to the ground. Your Constant Reader holds up to public notice Mr. Stewart's private character, about which enough might be advanced, with a view to throw an air of untruth over my communication: but this is aside from the point, and with it the public have nothing to do. The grand question I would propose to your Constant Reader is the following, Is there any part of my letter referring to Mr. Stewart untrue? He does not say so, and cannot say so: nay, in some of my statements, alias "vile and ungrateful aspersions," he agrees; but, what is more, I can defy him, or any other person, to say that what I stated of Mr. Stewart is not truth. For what reason, then, is it that I am called so much into question by your would-be critic? Is truth a libel? Can you defame a man's character by stating what is true of him? Is justice to a deceived public to be sacrificed at the shrine of what your Constant Reader would term gratitude or generosity?" What did Mr. Stewart publish his paper in the Horticultural Transactions for? Was it to benefit the public and posterity to the end of time? If this were his motive, why did he not contradict his statements as soon as he found them untenable? Your Constant Reader would have the world cheated by an imposition for ever, and that merely, forsooth, because the impostor has become defunct! Away with such reasoning. Does your critic really imagine that the interests of the living are to be immolated for the sake of the dead? Surely he thinks so, or else he would not speak so much about his gratitude and generosity. Your Constant Reader goes on all the while (and, indeed, it happens to be the only ground upon which he could manufacture a criticism) confidently assuming that I knew of Mr. Stewart's decease, and took advantage of this circumstance to asperse his character. He cannot, however, know this to be true; and his thus writing about what he knows not to be fact, condemns him to his face as not an honest lover of truth and justice. Your Constant Reader may assure himself that, if I had known of the demise of Mr. Stewart, I should have so modified my language, as would have prevented him, or any of his kin, from putting themselves to the expense and trouble of a criticism calculated to produce so trifling an effect; but, being entirely ignorant of this event, and some hundred miles distant from Valleyfield at the time of writing the paper in question, my only motive was that of endeavouring to prevent others from practising his schemes, knowing they would terminate in disappointment. I am consequently exempt from the foul charges of ingratitude, &c., which your Constant Reader has so generously and gratuitously heaped upon me; and these must recoil upon his own head as their originater, until he shall prove my paper untrue: then he may criticise with some reason, but not till then. Your Constant Reader further says, that for five years past Mr. Stewart has raised excellent pines. This I do not deny; this I never denied: but I deny that he ever raised pines, like those mentioned by your Constant Reader, in the manner given forth in the Horticultural Transactions. In conclusion, I have only to say, that I leave you and your readers to judge whether the line of conduct I have pursued, or that prescribed by your Constant Reader, would tend most to the advancement of the interests of horticulture or those of its operatives. I am, Sir, yours, &c. An Enemy to Deceit. Feb. 21. 1833. R. Jeffries and Son's Rebutment of the Insinuations of Mr. Laundy (p. 368.), on the Correctness and Authenticity of Mr. Smith's List of the rarer of their Plants, inserted in p. 102. — Sir, We feel ourselves called upon to reply to the criticisms of Mr. H. Laundy, inserted in p. 368., upon the list of the rarer of the plants cultivated by us, and inserted by you in p. 102. It is our opinion, opposed to that of Mr. Laundy, that such lists do deserve a place in your pages, upon the ground of "public usefulness." We should, and we have no doubt that many others would, like to see such lists introduced more frequently than they have been; for we, your subscribers, should then know where to apply when we wanted any particular plant or plants; but, as the case has been, we have, when gentlemen, their gardeners, or brother nurserymen, may have wanted some new or rare plants, sometimes been under the necessity of making application to different nurseries before our object could be attained, and this at an outlay, for the postage of letters and for other expenses, frequently equal in amount to the price of the plant sought for. Surely the removal of such an evil would be of "public usefulness." As to whether such lists are sent by the parties possessing the plants, or by a visiter, we cannot conceive that it can make any material difference, provided they are in every respect correct; but, judging from the suspicious insinuations of Mr. Laundy, it appears to us that he doubts both the correctness and the authenticity of that list. We beg leave, however, to inform him, that it contained a correct statement, and that there is not a plant named therein but such as was at that time in our possession; and although some of them were rare and difficult to be procured, and consequently our stock of them might not be very great, still, by any person of common understanding it must have been supposed that we should in a short time be able to supply our friends with them. As to the authenticity of the list in question, we most positively affirm that it was truly given; that it was wholly the production of Mr. Smith, whose name it bears; and that it was done by him without any solicitation on our part. And further, if we had possessed the smallest desire to see our collection puffed up beyond its natural height, and for that purpose had employed a hireling, Mr. Smith would have been one of the last persons to whom we should have made an application. From knowing, as we do, something of the cool but determined independence of his disposition, we shall feel somewhat surprised if even Mr. Laundy himself do not in future pause before he ventures his suspicions concerning him. Respecting the statement of Mr. Laundy, that Mr. Smith is a man not possessing any knowledge of plants, we at once declare such statement to be the result of ignorance concerning him, or otherwise a gross libel upon his character. Judge you, Sir, whether a man active both in body and mind, who has been under the instruction of some very excellent cultivators, and has subsequently had the management of a good general collection for nearly 20 years, and, withal, possessing a love of plants,— judge you, we say, whether such a man is likely to be without any knowledge of them. The fact, Sir, is, that Mr. Smith, instead of being unacquainted with plants, has shown himself preeminently skilful in the cultivation of them; and of this fact Mr. Laundy himself cannot possibly be ignorant. - R. Jeffries and Son, Nurserymen. Ipswich, Suffolk, June 24. 1833. Mr. Smith's Reply to Mr. Laundy's Remarks on the Lists of the rarer Plants grown by R. Jeffries and Son, which Mr. Smith had communicated, and which is published in p. 102.- Sir, In reference to the lists of plants grown in provincial nurseries, and especially to that supplied by me of the rarer plants of Messrs. Jeffries and Son, inserted in p. 102., H. Laundy “thinks ” (p. 368.) that these lists do not deserve a place in your valuable pages, on the ground of public usefulness, unless they contain plants that are rare and difficult to be procured." I, however, am of a contrary opinion; for “I think" that there are a great many plants which are neither" rare nor difficult to be procured," which are not so generally grown as their excellence would seem to justify; and I also "think" that H. Laundy cannot deny that this is the fact. In case, however, he should make an attempt to do so, I would provisionally ask, whether, from the numerous plants which might be named, Magnòlia conspicua, Chimonanthus fràgrans, Wistària Consequàna, Thunbergia alàta, and Quisquàlis índica, are not species which justify my opinion? or whether they are cultivated to one tenth of the extent to which they deserve to be? and also whether such deficiencies do not arise more from want of information as to whence they may be obtained, than from the circumstance of their being either "rare or "difficult to be procured"? H. Laundy proceeds, and adds, "and unless all those enumerated are not only possessed by the party contributing the list," (this is, indeed, prettily stated; for it implies that honour and accuracy in one man are not equal to honour and accuracy in another: the following, however, is superlative,) but possessed by them in sufficient quantity for sale." Query, Who is there but knows that when a nurseryman procures a rare plant, it is in the intention therefrom to supply every applicant, although in some cases he may not be able to do this in the first instance. H. Laundy farther states that "such lists, too, would appear with a better face if they came directly and professedly from the interested party, as their doing so would cast the responsibility for their accuracy on this party." - He adds, "I may venture my suspicion that Mr. Smith's name is insufficient to veil the real actor; Mr. Smith being a man not professing any acquaintance with plants, although a very creditable kitchen-gardener. With respect to the first part of this sentence, be it known and remembered that my name was not given for the above purpose, but for that of supplying the readers of the list in question with its authenticity; and I not only recognise it, in every particular, as my own production, but I also consider myself to be its rightful respondent. And I wish farther to state, that I never was a party in such a matter as the above, and in the manner hinted at by H. Laundy, with any man, nor will I ever be, whether such man be prince or whether he be peasant As for that part of the sentence which says, "Mr. Smith being a man not professing any knowledge of plants," I declare that it is void of the least particle of truth. If he had declared me to be a man not professing to possess a good systematical knowledge of botany, he would have stated the truth; but his statement that I do not profess any knowledge of plants I positively deny. Believing that these lists (when considerately introduced) lead to enquiry concerning the plants which are enumerated in them, and that such enquiry produces the desire of having the plants in possession, I hope that, by whomsoever they may be composed or authenticated, they may be frequently inserted in "your valuable pages," that, being thereby extensively circulated, they may become subjects possessing great public usefulness." I am, Sir, " your constant " and one of your earliest subscribers, John Smith. Whitton Road, Ipswich, June 18. 1833. - The Seeds of Pinus sent (Vol. VI. p. 212.) by M. Hartweg as Seeds of the Pinus resinosa Aiton were not Seeds of this Species, but Seeds of the Pinus caramánica of Bosc. Sir, On the subject of pine trees, I shall point out to you what I think an error in the opinion of M. Hartweg of Carlsruhe, as expressed in an extract from a letter from him, which has been inserted in Vol. VI. p. 212. He informs you that the Pìnus resinòsa of Aiton, or Pìnus rùbra of Michaux, exists in a certain quantity in the Hartwald in Leimerslächle; and he mentions some dried seed of it, which you have received and distributed. Greatly interested in this article, I wrote to M. Hartweg to ask him to send me a branch with cones of this species, which he had the kindness to do: but this specimen, instead of belonging to Pinus resinòsa, evidently appeared to me a European and Asiatic pine, still but little known (approaching very near to Laricio de Corse, P. Larício or altíssima), and which Bosc has named Pìnus caramánica. This pine is not generally admitted by botanists as a species; the greater number make it only a variety of P. Larício, in which, I think, they are botanically correct: but this variety is, however, quite distinct by its vegetation, and probably by its qualities. Henceforward, it ought to be distinguished from the species by foresters. On the whole, M. Hartweg has probably made you a more valuable present than if he had sent you the true P. resinòsa; but his notice, as to historical information, is erroneous; and, in order that the trees produced from this seed may not be established in England under a false name, it will be advisable for you to warn your friends, to whom you have distributed the seeds, that the plants produced from them are not the true P. resinòsa, but P. caramánica. I shall take this opportunity of speaking to you again of our P. Larício, the giant, and probably the finest, of the pines of Europe; the multiplication of which you ought to insist on in England, where it is still, I believe, very rare. It is quite hardy, succeeds as well by sowing on the spot as the Scotch pine (P. sylvestris), and may be regarded as one of the most precious forest species. We multiply it very much now in France; and I have myself sown, on my property of Barres, more than 12 arpens (about 15 acres English). I am, Sir, yours, &c. — M. Vilmorin. Paris, May 21. 1833. What Plant is fitter for Hedges than the Hawthorn? asks Mr. Cheeks. (Vol. VIII. p. 738.) I think with J. D. (p. 738.) that it would be not easy to find one better adapted for the purpose. By the by, I heard, some time back, in London, of |