REFERENCE TO THE PLATE.
1. Part of a Leaf, cut from the upper part.
2. The two sheaths of the Empalement.
3. The Flower cut open, with the chives attached.
4. The Pointal and Seed-bud; one of the summits detached and magnified.
This most beautiful genus does not possess amongst its numerous species, (drawings of twenty-two of which we have) a rival to A. fulgens; whether, for the size of the plant, which grows to the height of three feet, or the extreme brilliancy of its blossoms, which frequently make a spike near a foot in length. The roots should not be taken from the pots, but shifted into fresh earth annually, which may be a composition of half sandy peat, and half loam, as the leaves do not decay, until fresh ones are produced. Our figure was taken at the Hammersmith Nursery, in May 1800, to which it was first brought, from the Cape of Good Hope, in 1792. It increases by the root.
In a cotemporary, and something similar publication to our own, we were sorry to observe, a rising itch to do away, what, under the conduct of its original scientific proprietor, was allowed by all, to constitute its chief merit and utility; especially to those, “who wish to become scientifically acquainted with the plants they cultivate.” The late Mr. Curtis, pursuing the path he planned, with rigour, to prevent confusion, and avoid as much as possible the greatest difficulty of the science; seldom altered a commonly known, or established name; unless absolutely necessary to systematic arrangement. We were naturally led to these obvious observations, from the hints thrown out in the last Number of the Bot. Mag. in which, the A. tubulosa of all the collections, which possess the plant, and so named and figured by us, in the preceding Number of the Botanists Repository, has a new generic and specific title; and in which a gentleman “with INFINITE skill” of the name of Gawler, the acknowledged father of the innovation, is spoken of as qualified to scrutinize and rectify the “errors, false synonims, and blunders upon blunders, which have from carelessness, &c.” crept into the, of course, insignificant labours of a Linnæus, a Jacquin, a Thunberg, a Willdenow, or a Curtis. It may perhaps be an acquisition to the science, that, since such confusion prevails amongst “the most learned Botanists,” from their “acknowledged inability to determine those plants;” which, nevertheless, they have all foolishly attempted to do, we have one at last, whose “scrutinizing” eye “has been able to make out all Linnæus’s and even Thunberg’s species.” This elucidation, of so intricate a subject, by a person whose knowledge of living plants, we fear, does not lead him, scarcely, to an acquaintanceship with the difference of face in a Plane from a Poplar, must be matter of infinite moment, to those, “who wish to become acquainted with the plants they cultivate;” and the small trouble, to most persons, of learning new, and ousting the old names for plants, which have been long rivetted to the memory by habitual use, will be amply compensated, by the pleasure of novelty, which must necessarily result, from the certain alteration in some part of the title, of every plant which has hitherto, or is to come under, this learned judge’s dictatorial fiat. Our opinions, as do our labours, run counter to these new fashions, of rendering a difficult science easy; and our road must still be in the old track of the trifler Linnæus.[Pg 196]
