Sec. 59-60.
[31] Written in 1880.
[32] The plate of Chamaedrys, D. 448, is also quite right, and not 'too tall
and weedlike,' as I have called it at p. 72.
[33] "Stems numerous from the crown of the root-stock, de-cumbent."--S. The
effect of the flower upon the ground is always of an extremely upright and
separate plant, never appearing in clusters, (I meant, in close masses - it
forms exquisite little rosy crowds, on ground that it likes) or in any
relation to a central root. My epithet 'rosea' does not deny its botanical
de- or pro-cumbency.
[34] Compare especially Galeopsis Angustifolia, D. 3031.
[35] Octavo: Paris, Hachette, 1865.
[36] See in the ninth chapter what I have been able, since this sentence
was written, to notice on the matter in question.
[37] I envy the French their generalized form of denial, 'Il n'en est
rien.'
[38] 'Sensiblement invariable;' 'unchanged, _so far as we can see,_' or to
general sense; microscopic and minute change not being considered.
[39] Moreover, the confusion between vertical and horizontal sections in
pp. 46, 47, is completed by the misprint of vertical for horizontal in the
third line of p. 43, and of horizontal for vertical in the fifth line from
bottom of p. 46; while Figure 45 is to me totally unintelligible, this
being, as far as can be made out by the lettering, a section of a tree stem
which has its marrow on the outside!
[40] "Try a bit of rhubarb" (says A, who sends me a pretty drawing of
rhubarb pith); but as rhubarb does not grow into wood, inapplicable to our
present subject; and if we descend to annual plants, rush pith is the thing
to be examined.
Pages:
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142