dark and rugged background, not only to indicate the position of the eye,
but to relieve the forms of the leaves as they were intended to be shown. I
will try to give some examples in the course of this year.

2. I find also, sorrowfully, that the references are wrong in three, if not
more, places in that chapter. S. 971 and 972 should be transposed in p. 72.
S. 294 in p. 74 should be 984. D. 407 should be inserted after Peregrina,
in p. 76; and 203, in fourth line from bottom of p. 78, should be 903. I
wish it were likely that these errors had been corrected by my
readers,--the rarity of the Flora Danica making at present my references
virtually useless: but I hope in time that our public institutes will
possess themselves of copies: still more do I hope that some book of the
kind will be undertaken by English artists and engravers, which shall be
worthy of our own country.

3. Farther, I get into confusion by not always remembering my own
nomenclature, and have allowed 'Gentianoides' to remain, for No. 16, though
I banish Gentian. It will be far better to call this eastern mountain
species 'Olympica': according to Sibthorpe's localization, "in summâ parte,
nive solutâ, montis Olympi Bithyni," and the rather that Curtis's plate
above referred to shows it in luxuriance to be liker an asphodel than a
gentian.

4. I have also perhaps done wrong in considering Veronica polita and
agrestis as only varieties, in No. 3. No author tells me why the first is
called polite, but its blue seems more intense than that of agrestis; and
as it is above described with attention, vol. i., p. 75, as an example of
precision in flower-form, we may as well retain it in our list here. It
will be therefore our twenty-first variety,--it is Loudon's fifty-ninth and
last. He translates 'polita' simply 'polished,' which is nonsense. I can