about twenty-five years before that of Paris. Belleval was the first Professor of Botany; and, since his time, this establishment may boast of many other distinguished men who have taught there. Gouan, Broussonet, and De Candolle,

Perhaps Perhaps the preany of his prede

are names not to be slightingly passed over. sent Professor M. Delile has done more than cessors towards the advancement of the garden. M. Delile also does much towards forming an herbarium, which it were desirable should remain at Montpellier, as the private herbaria of Gouan and De Candolle are now, the one in Scotland, the other at Geneva.

Upon the whole, the state of botany in the south of France is very much advanced, and many botanists of note have studied here. As a proof of their labours, one has only to turn up a botanical work, to see that many plants have got the specific name of monspeliacus, from having been at first distinguished at Montpellier alone; and we believe that there is much yet to be done. At first, it is sufficient to give that name which we find in a Species Plantarum, to have a description that answers to the plant we are investigating: as, however, our herbaria enlarge, and our communications with naturalists at a distance increase, it may be supposed that we shall find that we have made many errors. Thus, we see, that, in the present day, not a few species in the south of France have been confounded with similar ones in the north of Europe. The Peplis portula of Montpellier is different from that of Britain *. The Isoetes lacustris found here, and which I believe Sir James Smith met with, is, if not a distinct species from the British one, a most remarkable variety the leaves are remarkably long and subulate; the same has been found in the north of Africa; whilst the true Isoetes lacustris, even in the north of Europe, is only found in cold alpine lakes or beds of rivers. The Montpellier one has been named Isoetes subulata. In place of the Arum maculatum, we here find the 4. italicum, the temperature of whose spadix ex

I have seen it in M. Gay's herbarium under the name of Peplis australis; and, if I recollect well, Salzman has brought it from Tangiers, under the name of P. biflora: this last is perhaps, however, a third species; but I have not my specimens at hand.

ceeds considerably that of the land; for the Thymus serpyllum we find the Th. zygis. Thesium linophyllum from Montpellier is probably different from that of Paris. Hippocrepis comosa is here, but H. scorpioides, Req. is more common *.

The difference between English and French gardens has been usually held forth as extremely great, and always in favour of the former. This I believe to be certainly true, as far as regards ornamental gardening, in which the English taste is no doubt preferable; but looking to them in a botanical point of view, the French far surpass the average in Britain. I have now examined various extensive gardens in France, and I uniformly find, that their gardeners understand more of botany than those in the same situation in England. In English and Scotch gardens, there is scarcely one person who can give the botanical name of a plant; or if they attempt it, it is ten to one a wrong one, or some barbarous jargon that they have received from some correspondent; and indeed (the Botanical Gardens and principal nurseries excepted), he who is at the head of the establishment knows least of all, being generally unable to give the name whether English or Dutch. The advantage to be derived from such gardens as have large collections of plants, I speak more of the unobtrusive than of the showy species, when a botanist procures a specimen, is thus completely annulled, as a great inducement in getting plants from a garden, is the hope of their being well determined, and of serving as a study and a type by which one is better able to recognise the species, if it should fall to his lot to meet with it in another country. In the French gardens, there is by no means so numerous an assemblage presented to the eye; but what we do find, are almost all well determined, either by some considerable herbarium, where authentic specimens may be examined, or by expensive works of plates. The proprietor is not contented with the vain-glory of spouting readily some hundreds of botanical names, but does not rest, when he has received a new plant to his establishment, under whatever name he has received it, until he has examined it attentive

* Hippocrepis multisiliquosa does not grow in France, H. ciliata hav mistaken for it: this last, with H. unisiliquosa, is extremely comm pellier.

ly as a botanist. In Britain, a nurseryman is literally a florist: in France, he is a cultivateur-botaniste. From the latter, one receives a specimen with more pleasure, as, when put into the herbarium, it is to represent the species.

This precision of nomenclature is no doubt much facilitated by the plan adopted by the Jardin du Roi. In France, there are, in addition to the several botanical institutions in Paris, many smaller ones, also under the government, scattered through the country. I may instance those of Lyons, of Strasburg, of Montpellier, of Toulouse, and of Perpignan. When any of these receive the root of a new or rare species from another country, or its seeds, the year following either seeds or roots are transmitted to the Jardin du Roi at Paris; and also, when any new plant arrives there, it is as soon as possible disseminated through the smaller establishments in the provinces. The care and attention paid to the naming of plants at the Museum, prevents almost the possibility of an error, and thus in the government institutions in the country, the species is found well determined. Specimens from such places are of great utility in determining with exactness similar species in the private nurseries, and, as I have already said, a botanist may look forward to study in any of them. One ought never to take a specimen from a British garden for their herbaria without examining it well. In France, one may take it as an authority by which to name others.

I cannot conclude these remarks, without observing, that the probable cause of the whole is the small inducement there is in Britain for any young man to devote himself to botany as a profession. In France there are so many public establishments, that a young man, if talented, and active and efficient in his studies, may, in a few years, look forward to a public appointment. In England, on the contrary, the Government have scarcely, I think, half a dozen botanical establishments in their pay. The consequence is, that in Paris alone there are more botanists of note than in the whole of Great Britain. Britain, it is true, possesses Brown, the greatest botanist of our time; also, Smith, Hooker and Lindley, men eminently distinguished in the annals of botanical science; but when their days are num

bered, it may be subject of regret that there are none worthy to succeed them *.

The face of vegetation has undergone considerable changes since I came to Montpellier. At one time, the garriques were yellow with Genista scorpius, and the meadows white with Narcissi now, the garriques are blue in some parts with Aphyllanthes monspeliensis, and silvery in others with Stipa tortilis: the Cistus albidus makes some places appear red, while C. monspeliensis makes others white. The principal genera here in spring are Fedia, Helianthemum, Medicago, Trifolium, Linum, and Euphorbia. In summer the Cisti, and in autumn the Centauriæ, abound of this last genus, I understand there are upwards of thirty-five species in the neighbourhood. Of the genus Biscu tella, so common in many parts of Italy, there are here very few species: the principal is B. ambigua, and B. saxatilis ß, DC +. Lathyrus, Astragalus, Vicia, and other genera of Leguminosa, are tolerably abundant. Of Polygala, I do not recollect of seeing any others than P. vulgaris (which bears no very great resemblance to the British one of that name), and P. monspeliaca. The latter, though I understand it to be rare about Montpellier, is common in some parts of the property of

• We are rather disposed to believe that Mr Arnott underrates the botanical accuracy of the gardens of this country; and that, on the whole, a greater degree of precision as to womenclature prevails in the principal gardens of Britain, than in similar establishments on the Continent. We hope to take up the subject in a future number; in which the gardens of England, France and Germany will be compared and contrasted.-Neither do we see cause to despair of the future progress of scientific botany in this country.-EDIT.

+ These two are only to be distinguished from each other by the asperities on the silicule. The most complete enumeration of the species of this beautiful genus is in De Candolle's Prodromus; but I doubt if all be equally valid. The characters in the first and last sections that De Candolle has made of first consequence, is the presence or absence of asperities on the silicule; and were this of less importance, a very curious combination of species would take place. I have endeavoured to arrange the following clavis analytica, so as to present this to the view:

SECT. I. Calyces basi longi bisaccati.

Silicul. disco lævibus (in stylum coeuntibus), Silicul. disco in stylum non f caule hispido, punctis ele. coeuntibus, caule villoso, vatis scabris, (in stylum coeuntibus,

Restinclieres; and it must not always be concluded, that the spe cific name Monspessulanus, Monspeliensis, or Monspeliacus, indicates the proximity of the plant to Montpellier: it sometimes happens that the nearest locality is in the Cevennes mountains; one plant (Potentilla monspeliensis) is even a North American species, and is not, that I know of, at all naturalized in this neighbourhood.

The climate of Montpellier seems to have been much misunderstood at present, however, I believe physicians are more aware of its insalubrity. It is surprising that any person who was not accustomed from infancy to the climate, and who had

A simple inspection of this table will shew how closely allied several of these species are to each other, if we pay no regard to the silicule. How far one ought to pay attention to it, is another question. At Montpellier and Avignon B. ambigua and B. saxatilis ß, are found promiscuously; and in Majorca and Minorca, B. auriculata is so intermingled with B. erigerifolia, that every specimen gathered requires to be closely examined.

In the second section, De Candolle has placed less reliance on the abovementioned structure, and I therefore prefer arranging the clavis in another way: