[10] Septuagint, "the eyes of doves out of thy silence." Vulgate, "the eyes
of doves, besides that which is hidden in them." Meaning--the _dim_ look of
love, beyond all others in sweetness.

[11] When I have the chance, and the time, to submit the proofs of
'Proserpina' to friends who know more of Botany than I, or have kindness
enough to ascertain debateable things for me, I mean in future to do
so,--using the letter A to signify Amicus, generally; with acknowledgment
by name, when it is permitted, of especial help or correction. Note first
of this kind: I find here on this word, 'five-petaled,' as applied to
Pinguicula, "Qy. two-lipped? it is monopetalous, and monosepalous, the
calyx and corolla being each all in one piece."

Yes; and I am glad to have the observation inserted. But my term,
'five-petaled,' must stand. For the question with me is always first, not
how the petals are connected, but how many they are. Also I have accepted
the term petal--but never the word lip--as applied to flowers. The generic
term 'Labiatæ' is cancelled in 'Proserpina,' 'Vestales' being substituted;
and these flowers, when I come to examine them, are to be described, not as
divided into two lips, but into hood, apron, and side-pockets. Farther, the
depth to which either calyx or corolla is divided, and the firmness with
which the petals are attached to the torus, may, indeed, often be an
important part of the plant's description, but ought not to be elements in
its definition. Three petaled and three-sepaled, four-petaled and
four-sepaled, five-petaled and five-sepaled, etc., etc., are
essential--with me, primal--elements of definition; next, whether resolute
or stellar in their connection; next, whether round or pointed, etc. Fancy,
for instance, the fatality to a rose of pointing its petals, and to a lily,
of rounding them! But how deep cut, or how hard holding, is quite a minor
question.