differing from Panicum by the furrowed calyx and absence of an accessory valve. The type of it is the Phalaris villosa of Michaux, which Elliot calls A. ciliatus, and to which he adds a second species A. rufus.

Monocera. Triandria digynia. Flowers lateral. Calyx 3 valved multiflore, valves awned below the summit. Herm. fl. Corolla 2 valved, unequal; the exterior valve awned below the summit. Neut. fl. Corolla 2 valved unawned. This N. G. is intermediate between Eleusine and Chloris: it is formed upon the Chloris monostachya of Lin. but the name is erroneous, there being already a genus of univalve shells called by a similar name by Lamark, &c. It must, therefore, be changed into Triatherus, meaning three bristles, since the calyx or glume has so many: the specific name will be T. aromaticus. Lyonia. Pentandria digynia. Pollen masses 10 smooth pendulous. Stamineal crown 5 leaved, the leaves flat erect. Stigma conical 2 cleft. Corolla 1 petal, campanulate. Follicles smooth. This N. G. is formed upon the Ceropegia palustris of Pursh, or Cynanchum angustifolium of Muhlenberg. The name happens to be as erroneous as the above, upon two evident principles: 1. because it is almost identical in sound with the genus Allionia; 2. because a genus was already dedicated to Mr. Lyon, in 1808, by Rafinesque, in the Medical Repository, formed of the Polygonella of Michaux, (also erroneous in name) which he has since rendered exact by calling it Lyonella. This genus might therefore be dedicated to the late worthy Dr. Macbride, and called Macbridea: specific name M. maratima.

Acerates. Differing from Asclepias by having no appendage in the auricles or crown. A similar name had been given previously by Persoon to a different genus: this, therefore, which ought perhaps to be a mere subgenus of Asclepias, must receive the name of Acerotis, meaning auricles without horns: the A. viridiflora of Rafinesque and Pursh may be united to it.

Podostigma. Corpuscle on a pedicel, pollen masses 10, &c. smooth, pendulous. Stamineal crown 5 leaved, leaves compressed. Corolla campanulate, follicles smooth. Formed with the Asclepias viridis and A. pedicellata of Walter. A good name.

Lepuropetalon. Pentandria trigynia. Calyx 5 parted. Petals 5, resembling scales inserted on the calyx. Capsul free near the summit, 1 celled 3 valved. Next

to Turnera and scarcely distinct from it, the ovary is probably free altogether and covered by the base of the calyx at its base. Muhlenberg had united this genus with Pyxidanthera, which was wrong, since it has scarcely any affinity with it. The name of Lepuropetalon is rather too long, being in the same predicament with Symphoricarpos, Anapodophyllum, which have been shortened. This might, therefore, be shortened into Petalepis, which has the same meaning.

Monotropsis. Schweinitz. Decandria monogynia. Calyx 5 leaved, leaves upright hooded, base unguiculate-gibbose. Corolla monopetal campanulated fleshy quinquefid. Nectary quinquefid. Stamina 10, a pair between each angle of the nectary. Ovary 5 gone, 1 style, stigma 5 valved.-This new genus, which has been discovered in North-Carolina, by Mr. Schweinitz, belongs to the same natural family than the genera Monotropa and Hypopythis, notwithstanding the monopetalous corolla, since the stamina are not inserted thereon. The name given by the discoverer being objectionable, Mr. Elliott proposes to substitute therefor the name of Schweinitzea, which, we trust, will be acceded to. It contains only one species, S. odorata, which has the smell of the violet, the habit of Monotropa, aggregated flowers of a whitish red colour, &c.

Mr. Elliott might have established several other new genera, and he has, in some instances, intimated the propriety of it; but a timidity, too general among the botanists of the strict Linnæan school, has prevented him from executing what he considered advisable. The following axiom ought to become a botanical rule: All the species differing generically from their supposed congenera, must form separate genera, since it flows from the evident botanical laws, that, a genus is a collection of consimilar species, and that consimilar objects are to be united, while dissimilar objects are to be divided. The multiplicity of genera, far from being contrary to the correct principles of the science, as somne botanists have wrongly conceived, is conducive to the gradual improvement of it, since it takes place only when new observations of characters prove the necessity of such an increase.

The shape and style of the whole work is strictly Linnæan; but in the synoptical view of the genera belonging to each class, they are deprived of their definitions, which is, perhaps, an oversight, but an objectionable one. The characters o the genera are only synoptical, they are

given in Latin and English, as well as those of the species; a selection of synonymes follows them, next a complete English description is given of all the species which the author has seen, and they are by far the greatest number. Many valuable observations are added, including their native situations and soils; times of blossoming; vulgar names; medical and economical properties, &c. Among these propertics several are entitled to notice, some are new, and many have been communicated by Dr. Macbride, &c. We deem worthy of attention those belonging to the following spe

cies.

Salvia lyrata,
Tris versicolor,
Spigelia marilandica,

Convolvulus macrorhizon,
Lobelia inflata,

Gonolobus macrophyllus,
Chenopodium anthelminthicum,
Acorus calamus, &c.

The classification of this work is also Linnæan, without scarcely any variation. We regret exceedingly this general infatuation for the absurd sexual system, which is as yet prevalent in our country; however, it may be considered as an imperfect alphabet, competent for those who are acquainted with its principles and anomalies. No reference to natural affinities is made in this work; but as it is rather a species than a genera plantarum, the deficiency is less remarkable in this instance.

While a servile adherence is shown to the erroneous Linnæan systematical classification, notwithstanding its defects were well known to its author, and probably to Mr. Elliott himself, and ought to claim the serious consideration of all botanical writers, many of whom have been led thereby to reject it altogether, and supersede it by the real natural principles of classifieation and botanical affinities;-while we inust blame such a blind compliance with errors long ago detected, our astonishment increases when we observe, that a deviation from the wise and correct Linnaan rules of nomenclature, is in some instances adopted. Certainly, if our writers will follow the steps of Linnæus, whether right or wrong, as some philosphers of yore used to follow the principles of Aristotle or Zeno, to the exclusion of any other, and sometimes even against the dictates of common sense, let them at least be consistent in their principles, and tread steadily in the footsteps of their adopted school. But to deviate from its correct principles, while they adhere to

us.

The generic name of Arundinaria Michaux, formed from the previous genus Arundo, is adopted instead of Miegia, which was properly substituted by Persoon.

Spartina, which is derived from Spartium, is adopted instead of Limnetis or Trachynotia; this last appears the best.

Centaurella, derived from Centaurea, is adopted instead of Bartonia, a former and better name.

Polygonatum, derived from Polygonum, instead of Axillaria.

Smilacina, derived from Smilax, instead of Sigillaria or Majanthus.

Onosmodium, derived from Onosma, is adopted instead of Osmodium.

Catalpa, including Talpa, instead of Calalpium, &c. besides

Monotropsis, which, however, is proposed to be superseded by the name of Schweinitzea.

The absurd name of Ammyrsine Pursh, is however rejected for the previous and better name of Leiophyllum Persoon: while the posterior name of Syena Schreber, is adopted instead of the first name Mayaca Aublet; both being equally good, it would appear that the first ought to have claimed the preference.

A variety of specific observations and important synonymes are scattered through the whole; some changes in the nomenclature of species, appear to have been requisite, which are often proper; yet objections might be made to some: we shall notice here a few instances, and add some miscellaneous remarks.

The Statice caroliniana of Walter, is quite a peculiar species, which we have seen growing as far north as Long-Island,

lected by all. The effect of the peace, the influx of British goods at prices unprecedentedly low, followed by the astonishing rise of the raw material of cotton, produced a state of things as distressing to the American manufacturer, as it was flattering to his foreign rival. High raised hopes were dashed to the ground; ruin came upon many, embarrassment upon all. The prospect of ruin to American manufactures was hailed, in the British parliament, as auspicious to English interests, and as yielding a sufficient compensation for the sacrifice and loss on the sales of goods sent out to America.

In this fallen condition, our manufacturers petitioned congress for relief. In 1816 it was granted; not by a prohibition ef foreign goods, nor by bounties, nor preniums, but in the form of protecting dufies; that is to say, by increasing the import duty on such articles as come in competition with the manufactures of the country.

In what manner Mr. Bristed has treated the distresses of our manufacturers, and what terms he has applied to their petitions to congress, will appear from the following extracts from his book."This Society (the American Society for encouraging manufactures) is continually beseeching and besieging congress to exclude all foreign goods from the United States, and give them a monopoly of the American market." p. 55.

"Their standing committees and eternal clamour about the dignity of patriotism, and the necessity of not depending on foreign nations for articles of use and convenience, are always an overmatch for the yeoman," &c. p. 56.

"Whether or not the general government is to be borne down by this incessant clamour, and sacrifice the interests of all the rest of the community to those of a very small portion of that community, remains yet to be seen." p. 57.

Whether this be good or bad writing, all will agree that it is writing very much like an Englishman; something like those agents of English houses, scattered through all our seaports, always true to the interests of British manufacturers, and, occasionally, condescending to enlighten unlettered Americans on the interests of the country and the duty of the government.

But to the point;-are the facts as sumed by this writer, and charged upon our manufacturers and the government, true? It will, by and by, be shown, that both the government of the union, and almost all the distinguished statesmen of the United States, have concurred, and

by an unparalleled unanimity of opinion, in the encouragement which has been given to manufactures, by protecting duties. Our manufacturers stand charged by Mr. Bristed with " besieging congress to exclude all foreign goods from the United States." The subject, a great branch of national industry; the occasion, writing a book for the information of the public; the serious charge upon a great class of respectable individuals, all conspired to impose on the writer the utmost care and regard to the facts, on which he has bestowed such undistinguishing, such hightoned censure.

It is confidently believed, that Mr. Bristed will not be able to discover in the files, or journals of congress, a solitary petition of manufacturers to warrant the above charge. On no occasion is an exemption from the common obligation of speaking the truth, even of an enemy, to be conceded. But some indulgence is due to a zeal, a crusading zeal, in which the writer, losing himself, is insensibly transported beyond knowledge and the ordinary restraint of discretion.

It is true, that manufacturers did ask of congress a prohibition of the importation of India cottons, (which are, mostly, of an unsubstantial fabrio, and comparatively, of little value,) but here they stopt as to prohibition. Had congress followed the example of Great Britain, Holland, and France, the prohibition would have been adopted; but a different course prevailed, and the manufacturers submitted.

When the East India Company poured into Great Britain their cotton goods, about the year 1786, in the manner they have recently done into the United States, the manufacturers of England took the alarm, and resorted to parliament, representing that they could not stand the competition; that the manufactories of the country would be crushed in the contest. A prohibition to sales of India cottons in the country was readily adopted. Congress have not gone so far, but have left the American manufacturer to struggle in the competition with India goods, subject however to an increased duty on the importation; and yet our author finds pretexts to censure the encouragement afforded American manufactures.

It is feared Mr. Bristed will be found, in his zeal, equally unfortunate in his imputation to manufacturers of “incessant clamours," to induce congress to sacrifice the interest of all the rest of the community to that of a very small portion of that community.

In the leading memorial of manufactur

ers to Congress, recently published in the Evening Post, and several other papers, the following language is holden.

"Before we proceed further, and at the very threshhold, we disclaim all legislative patronage, or favor to any particular class or branch of industry, at the expense of the other classes in community. We ask of congress the adoption of no measure for the relief of manufacturers, which is not deemed consistent with sound national policy, and the best interests of the United States at large!"

Had Mr. Bristed's book been written in a distant English factory, and by one who had never seen the United States, it could not have shown greater ignorance of the sentiments and conduct of American manufacturers, or a greater disposition to misrepresent them.

The reader will not fail to witness, in going over Mr. Bristed's tirade, the liberal use of the terms, "monopoly," "bounties," "prohibiting duties," &c. applied to the protection afforded manufactures. If the object be to alarm community, by a bug-bear exhibition, and excite popular prejudice against manufactures, it is believed the good sense and sober judgment of the American yeomanry, will be an overmatch for such an artifice. There is nothing to be found in the acts of congress, for the protection of manufactures, to warrant the application of the above terms, and the same is, in Mr. Bristed, an affronting abuse of language. To make an outcry of mad-deg, in order to point hostility and run down the victim of pursuit, is a vulgar artifice, as unbecoming the office assumed by Mr. Bristed, as it is inconsistent with a professed "brief outline," to descend to a slanderous attack upon the whole body of manufacturers.

A radical error pervades all the essays against manufacturers, in supposing them a distinct class, and this for the purpose of charging them with conspiring against the rest of community. Let it be never lost sight of, that in the United States are to be found no great manufacturing towns, no separate class of manufacturers; on the contrary, as it respects the particular subjects of the recent protection, farmers, merchants, professional men vest their surplus income in manufactories, and the workmen are the servants or hired labourers of the company. Such, with few exceptions, will be found to be the actual condition and proprietorship of the recently established manufactories of the United States.

Hence the "incessant clamour," (to use the language of our author,) against the

manufacturers of the country, as a distinct class, is seen in a just light, as the offspring of palpable error, or masked hostility, tending to subvert American and subserve foreign interests.

This writer pays a sorry compliment to the enlightened farmers and planters of the United States, composing nine-tenths of the whole population of the country, and their more enlightened representatives in congress, in supposing them in need of the counsels of a meddling foreigner, to detect, and guard them against the conspiracy of their own manufacturers. But who, and where, arc the monsters against whom this modern Hercules raises so high his club? Who are these enemies of the public good, who solicit, and who are they who bestow protection on manufactures? It is answered, the society for the protection of American manufactures, whose president and vicepresident are among our most distinguished citizens; a society which numbers among its members three, if not four, successive presidents of the United States; two different congresses, who in 1816 and 1818, passed these denounced protecting statutes, by majorities, rarely to be found in their annals, on great national subjects of so much feeling,—by a majority, in the first instance, of between 30 and 40, in the House of Representatives, and in the last, of 106 to 34; and in the Senate, by an almost unanimous vote,

Manufacturers saw, with pride, among other great men, Rufus King, distinguished as the statesman without reproach, the advocate of those bills. Here is enough to teach this writer a lesson of moderation in bestowing censure on the much and long abused manufacturers of the country. The fallen condition of that class, struggling against foreign rivalship, might have been expected to disarm hostility, how strongly soever excited by foreign partialities. A decent respect to the memorable report of secretary Hamil ton, so highly eulogised by Mr. Bristed, containing the most conclusive answers to every objection, which ever has been, or probably can be, raised to the protec tion of manufactures, might also have been expected to restrain the licentiousness of our author's pen. Mr. Bristed iş invited to bestow a few hours on that report, and, in the next edition of his book, favour the public with a refutation of the arguments in that report, hitherto deemed unanswerable, or retract his charges against manufactures. For, let it be remembered, that the protection of manufactures has not been carried so far as