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 summa parte, nive soluta, 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 think of nothing to call it but ‘dainty,’ and will leave it at present unchristened.

5.  Lastly.  I can’t think why I omitted V. Humifusa, S. 979, which seems to be quite one of the most beautiful of the family—­a mountain flower also, and one which I ought to find here; but hitherto I know only among the mantlings of the ground, V. thymifolia and officinalis.  All these, however, agree in the extreme prettiness and grace of their crowded leafage,—­the officinalis, of which the leaves are shown much too coarsely serrated in S. 984, forming carpets of finished embroidery which I have never yet rightly examined, because I mistook them for St. John’s wort.  They are of a beautiful pointed oval form, serrated so finely that they seem smooth in distant effect, and covered with equally invisible hairs, which seem to collect towards the edge in the variety Hirsuta, S. 985.

For the present, I should like the reader to group the three flowers, S. 979, 984, 985, under the general name of Humifusa, and to distinguish them by a third epithet, which I allow myself when in difficulties, thus: 

V. Humifusa, caerulea, the beautiful blue one, which resembles Spicata.  V. Humifusa, officinalis, and, V. Humifusa, hirsuta:  the last seems to me extremely interesting, and I hope to find it and study it carefully.

By this arrangement we shall have only twenty-one species to remember:  the one which chiefly decorates the ground again dividing into the above three.