letters, and printed them in 1718, under the title of Philofophi cal Letters, between the learned Mr. Ray, and feveral of his Correspondents.

• The character of Mr. Ray cannot be contemplated by those who have a true relish for the studies of nature, without a high fentiment of respect and gratitude; nor by those who confider the exemplariness of his life as a man, and his qualifications as a divine, without veneration."

Chap. 21. Poetical Botanists. Cowley wrote, before the Restoration, his two first books on Plants, although they were not published till 1662. The remaining four were added in the edition of 1668; and the whole were republished, with other poems, in 1678.

Chap. 22. Dr. Chriftopher Merret: Pinax rerum NaturaKum Britannicarum, 1667. This work was undertaken to fupply the deficiencies of How's Phytographia. The plants are ranged alphabetically by the Latin names. The number is upwards of 1400; but there are many varieties and exotics. Several British plants, however, make their first appearance in the pinax. The zoological and mineralogical parts are very fuperficial.

Dr. Marret published some other small treatises; was among the earliest members of the Royal Society, and contributed feveral papers, which were printed in the Philosophical Tranfactions.

Chap. 23. Dr. Robert Morifon was born at Aberdeen in 1620; and being driven into exile by his attachment to the royal cause, was taken into the patronage of the Duke of Orleans, and appointed intendant of his fine garden at Blois, in 1650. In this fituation he became known to Charles 11. who, on the death of his uncle in 1660, invited Morison into England. He had the title of King's Phyfician, and Royal Profeffor of Botany, with an appointment of 2001. a year, and a house, as fuperintendant of the royal gardens. In this situation he remained till 1669, when he was elected Botanic Professor at Oxford. He died Nov. 10, 1683.'

Morifon's first publication, was a fecond edition of Abel Bruyner's Hortus Blefenfis, 1669. It contains the rudiments of his method of classification; the errors of Cafp. and John Bauhin, &c. He was also the editor of Paolo Boccone's Icones et defcriptiones rariorum plantarum Melitæ, Galliæ et Italie. Oxon. 1674. 4to.

• As a fpecimen of his great work, the history of plants, Morifon published, in 1672, Plantarum umbelliferarum diftributio nova. fpecimen excited the attention of the learned, augmented Morifon's patronage, and encouraged him to profecute his great work, of which the first volume came out under the title of Plantarum Hiftoriæ Univerfalis Oxonienfis, Pars fecunda, &c. fol. 1680. The first part, on trees and fhrubs, was never printed: but Schelhammer tells us that he faw the whole work perfect in the hands of the author. The five first claffes only of the herbs were published by the author. The third part, or more properly the second volume, was published by Jacob Bobart, in 1699.'

Chap. 24. A short history of the rife and progress of system, method or classification of plants, from its origin to its revival in England-Gefner, Cæfalpinus, Columma. Ray and Morifon laboured at the same time on this subject. Ray's system inade its first appearance in Bishop Wilkins's Real Character, 1668, but was not detailed in his Methodus till 1682. Morison's appeared in the Hortus Blesensis, 1669, and was exemplified in his History of Plants, 1680. Rival systems were foon constructed -on the fruit, by Knaut in 1687, Herman in 1690, Boerhaave in 1710-on the flower, by Rivinus, in 1690, Tournefort in 1694, Ruppius in 1718, Magnol in 1720, Ludwig in 1737.

Chap. 25. Difcovery of the sexes in plants. The antients had an imperfect idea of them in the date and fig-tree, but applied the distinction of fexes to many plants, in which there is no such distinction. Cæsalpinus is the first who mentions the doctrine of the sexual analogy between plants and animals. Adam Zalwziausky, a Polish writer, in 1592, is also faid to have diftinguished the sexes. But no progress was made on this subject, till Dr. Grew, in a lecture on the anatomy of flowers, read before the Royal Society, Nov. 6, 1676, proved that the sexual process was general among vegetables, and that the duft of the anthere was endowed with an impregnating power. In 1695, Camerarius seems to have been the first who gave stability to the doctrine by experiments. Morland in 1703, Geoffroy in 1711, Vaillant in 1718, Blair, Bradley, Fairchild, Miller, &c. affifted in the same career. Tournefort and Pontedera rejected the doctrine: Alston and Spallanzani have written professedly against it. In 1732, Linnæus founded his system on this doc

trine.

Chap. 26. Thomas Willisel, collector of plants for Merret, Morifon, Ray and Sherard. Dr. Robert Plott, the first who sketched out a plan for A Natural History of Counties, exemplified in that of Oxfordshire 1677, and Staffordshire 1679. Leigh's Lancashire, &c. 1700. Robinson's Westmorland, 1709. Moreton's Northamptonshire, 1712. Borlafe's Cornwali, 1758. Wallis's Northumberland, 1769. Sir George Wheler, the traveller into Greece, enumerates several hundreds of the plants of that country, gives engravings of fome, and introduced several into our 'gardens.

(In a future number we shall notice the second volume.)

ART. v. Jacobi Dickson Fafciculus Plantarum Cryptogamifcarum Britannia. London. 1785. 4to. For the Author in Covent Garden, and G. Nicol.

Ejufdem Fafciculus Secundus. 1790. British Plants of the Class Cryptogamia, No. 1 and 2.

THE

THE plants of the class Cryptogamia were very long before they attracted the notice even of Botanifts, who are yet far from having attained a perfect knowledge of them. The labours, however, of the accurate Dillenius, brought us acquainted with a very confiderable number of this minute and difficult tribe: and the microscopic observations of Hedwig have cast a new light upon it.

British mosses and funguses were little noticed by our old writers, or even by Ray himself in his earlier works. The third edition, however, of the Synopfis, from the labours of Dillenius, added to those of Ray, may boast a very confiderable lift of the class Cryptogamia. These have been reduced to the Linnean names and system, by Mr. Hudson, in his Flora Anglica, the late Mr. Lightfoot in his Flora Scotica, and Mr. Relhan, in his Flora Cantabrigienfis. These gentlemen also have made confiderable additions to our former stock, and by their judicious observations have cleared up many obscurities.

Mr. Dickson is eminently qualified by his zeal, activity and accuracy, both to bring us acquainted with many new plants in their class, and to elucidate the doubts and difficulties which adhered to the old ones. He also enjoys the willing afsistance of those who are best skilled in this difficult department of Botany; he has a keen eye, adapted to the scrunity of nature's minutenesses; and he has made several extensive journeys into the remoter parts of the Island, which had been little fearched by former Botanists, and yet are rich in productions of this class.

The author dedicates his performance to Sir Joseph Banks, of whose ample library he was permitted the full use, and under whose patronage he writes.-He informs us that his general design is to publish such British plants only of the class Cryptogamia, as have not made their way into the Floras of Hudson, Curtis, and Lightfoot; except in a few cafes, wherein he has found, by inspecting the Linnean and Dillenian herbariums, that errors have crept into the denomination. Where the plant has not been figured in any former work, or, what is worse, has been figured unfaithfully, he gives a faithful reprefentation, elegantly engraved by Sir Joseph Banks's artist.

The first fafciculus contains 17 Moffes, of which five are new; that is, have not appeared in any prior publication.

Ten are figured in the first plate; namely, 1. Phascum ferratum. 2. P. alternifolium. 3. P. axillare. 4. Mnium ofmundaceum. 5. Bryum viridulum. 6. B. capillaceum. 7. Hypnicum ftellatum. 8. H. penuatum. 9. H. ftramineum. 10. Jungermannia Sphagni. Twenty four Alga; ; whereof five are new, and nine figured in the second plate: viz, I. Lichen coccincus. 2. L. Sphæroides. 3. L. querneus. 4. L. pezizoides. 5. L. canescens. 6. L. luteus. 7. L. upsalienfis. 8. L. tenuissimus. 9. L. cochlea

1

tns.-Forty-two Fungi; of which three only have not been noticed in print. Six are figured in plate the third, viz. 1. Agaricus fordidus. 2. Boletus strobiliformis. 3. Sphæria entomorbiza. 4. Lycoperdon coliforme. 5. L. fragile. 6. Mucor urceolatus.

Most of the plants are described, unless they have been fufficiently noticed before by Dillenius and others. The places of growth are fet down, with the time of flowering, in some instances; and the name of the first British discoverer, when the plant was communicated to Mr. Dickson by any of his friends.

We learn, that in the cafe of the dry rot, which is often so fatal to fir timber exposed to moisture in close places, and communicating with the wall, that a species of fungus is produced, called Boletus lacrymans; by Mr. Hudson Agaricus pectinatus; and figured in the 3d edition of Ray's Synopfis (t. 1. f. 5.) under the name of Agaricus coriaceus longissimus, pečtinatim inferne divifus.

The second fafciculus contains 60 Mosses, 27 Algæ, and it Fungi. Of the Mosses 19 are new; of the Algæ 8; of the Fungi none: nor are any of these figured. In plates four and five there are figures of the following Mosses. 1. Fontinalis alpina. 2. Splachnum tenue. 3. Bryum calcareum. 4. B. ftelligerum. 5. B. flavefcens. 6. B. reticulatum. 7. B. obtufum. 8. B. patens. 9. B. tetragonum. 10. B. Zierii. In plate 5. 1. B. marginatum. 2. B. cubitale. 3. B. dealbatum. 4. Hyperum Smithii. 5. H. asplenioides. 6. H. pulchellum. 7. Jungermannia curvifolia. 8. Hypnum molle. 9. Fung. pauciflora. 10. J. macrorhiza.

In plate 6, these Algæ are figured: 1. Lichen membranaceus. 2. L. fusco-luteus. 3. L. oculatus. 4. L. calvus. 5. L. gibbofus. 6. L. cæfius. 7. L. carnofus. 8. L. faturninus. 9. L. Muscicola. 10. L. vermicularis.

The second fafciculus closes with two pages of synonyms to be added to those of the first and a list of plants, with all of which, except one, Mr. Dickson has now first enriched the British Flora in his two late expeditions into Scotland. Thefe are, 1. Veronica alpina. 2. V. faxatilis. 3. Phleum alpinum. 4. Draba Aellata. 5. Hieracium molle. 6. H. villofum. 7. H. (picatum. 8. Erigeron alpinum. 9. Salix retufa. 10. Acroftichum ikvenfe, Hudf. 11. Polypodium Oreopteris.

It frequently happens, that in contemporary publications, new plants are given by the respective authors under different names. Hence arifes confufion and a multiplication of false species. The public therefore will be glad to be informed from undoubted authority, that Lichen canescens of Dickson is L. incanus of Relhan. L. fcrupofus, Dickf. excavatus, Relh. Tremella mesenterica Dicks. juniperina, Relh. Helvella mesenterica, Dicks. Tremella corrugata, Relh. Sphæria memmosa, Dicks. S. mammiformis, Relh.

м. т. ART.

ART. VI. The new Family Herbal; or, Domestic Physician : enumerating, with accurate Descriptions, all the known Vegetables which are any Way remarkable for medical Efficacy: with an Account of their Virtues in the several Diseases incident to the human Frame. Illustrated with Figures of the most remarkable Plants, accurately delineated and engraved. By William Meyrick, Surgeon. 8vo. 496 p. Pr. 7s. in boards; coloured copies 145. Birmingham, Pearson; London, Baldwin. 1790.

A WORK of this kind must obviously be principally a compilation; and whether, in the botanical part of it, the author be chiefly indebted to the Genera Plantarum or Systema Vegetabilium of Linnæus, to the late translation of these works by the Lichfield Society, or, as is perhaps most probable, to the last edition of the Botanical Arrangement of Drs. Withering and Stokes, can be of little importance, provided the general descriptions are accurate, and sufficiently mark the different species. Mr. Meyrick has adopted an alphabetical arrangement of the plants, which, for the purposes for which this publication is designed, we think preferable to a systematic arrangement, the former certainly admitting of a more convenient reference. We pretend not to have examined every species, a task, in so comprehensive a work, evidently more arduous than necessary, but in those individuals which we have compared, and the number is not small, the descriptions are so very just, that we think we may fafely give the author credit for the rest being fo, and may therefore pronounce this part of the work to be sufficiently accurate for those persons to whose use it is appropriated. The author will, however, excuse us for pointing out an error he has fallen into with respect to the botanical name of a well-known and much-ufed plant, the rose; though we are the less surprised at this, as the learned college, in the late new Pharmacopæia, fell into a fimilar mistake respecting the fame plant. The damask rose is not, as Mr. Meyrick supposes, the rosa gallica of Linnæus, nor the rofa centifolia of Linnæus, as it is called in the Pharmacopeia, but the rofa damascena of Miller, and which seems not to have been known by the Swedish naturalift, as he quotes Miller for it in his Materia Medica, to which we refer our author. The rofa gallica is the red conserve rose, andis properly so called in the new Dispensatory. The true damask rofe is pale, like the common Provence, but has fewer petals, and little scent. The petals of the red rose, on the contrary, though few in number, are of a deep red. As the virtues of these two rofes are very different, it seems abfolutely neceffary, that this matter, so little attended to and so little known, should be cleared up, the red rose poffeffing aftringent strengthening qualities, and the damask purgative ones. The first is made