“ A t th e angles o f the air-cells o f the radicles, a n d 'in th e - lobes o f th§ stigma, are certain bodies resembling, fascines, consisting, o f slender; spines,
standing o ut on each side from a short central column. Possibly o the r tissues o f th e p lan t contain d iese bodies,, b u t.I could n q t d e te c t them in th e leaf-stalk.
“ T he Igarapé, where we gathered the Victoria, is called Tapiruari. Two flowers were brought to me a few days afterwards, from-the adjacent lake,
which seems to have no name b u t tha t o f die Sitios on its banks. Mr. Jeffreys also s ent m e flowers from th e Rio Arrapixuna, which runs into th e
Tapajoz, above Santarem, and in die wet season unites th e Tapajoz and the Amazon. I have information likewise o f its inhabiting abundantly a lake
beyond the Rio Mayaca, which flows into the Amazon some miles below Santarem. Mr. Wallace, who re c ently v isited Monte Alégre, h ad a leaf, and
flower brought to him there. I have seen a portion o f th e leaf, which he dried. Lastly, I have distinct intelligence o f its o c curring in th e Rio Trombétés,
near Obidos, and in the lakes betwixt the rivers Tapajoz and Mad e ira ; thus proving th a t i t is plentifully distributed through th e whole o f this region,
both north and south o f th e Amazon.”
Having now detailed all the information we have acquired respecting th e discovery o f the Victoria, to ge the r with th e recorded observations, whether
o f botanists or o f other travellers, we come to speak o f th e names un d e r which theqflant has. a p pe a red i n different publications. .
NAMES OF THE. GREAT WATER-LILY.
A l r eady we have sta ted th a t th e earliest name given to this plant, in 1832, b y ¡Poppig, was Euryale Amazonica,—“ Euryale,” because th a t naturalist
considered it identical in generic character with th e well-known Euryale o f th e E a s t In d ie s ; and “ Amazonica” because h e h ad discovered it in the
waters o f th e Amazon, to which river he probably deemed th a t i t was peculiar. W ha teve r opinion some o f our ablest botanists m ay h a v e formerly
entertained in favour o f its belonging to th e genus Euryale, we believe th a t now, when good, and even; living, specimens m a y b e seen, as i t w ere, almost
a t our doors, every one “is satisfied th a t th e p lan t possesses ample characters to k e ep it distinct. I t would app e a r th a t p rio r to th e public a tion o f Euryale
Amazonica, th e specimens (very indifferent ones, it is confessed) which were pre sented to th e Museum o f Na tu ra l History, a t .Paris, b y M. D ’Orbigny,
were referred by th e Professors o f th a t establishment to Euryale:—“ Gette plante avait d e ¡si g ran d s rapports avec Y Euryale, q u e les. Botanistes d u
Ja rd in n ’hésitèrent pa s à la considérer comme s a congénère. • Malheureusement,” adds M. Guillemin, “ le s fleurs e t -fruits secs:ne re çurent p a s les soins
q ue l’importance d e la p lante semblait devoir leur attirer, e t ces organes n ’existent p lus dans les collections. Il n ’e s t re sté q u ’u n e feuille, immense, ployée
p our ê tre insé ré e dans l’herbier, mais u n p e u détériorée.” * M. Guillemin afterwards assented to its constituting a d istinc t genus, I n this opinion
M. D’Orbigny was disposed to concur; b u t imagining th a t he h ad detected two species, h e writes, in a “ Note su r les E sp è c e s d u Genre iVictoria”
which follows immediately on th e p ap e r o f M. Guillemin, “ D e re to u r en France, en 1834, j e parlai d e mes belles plante s à M. A d olphe Brongniart,
e t lui communiquai mes dessins. Dé jà il avait reconnu, sur- m es. échantillons conservés au Museum, q u e c’é ta it u ne forme nouvelle,t-qu’il s e proposait
de décrire, dans la p a rtie Botanique d e mon Voyage, do n t la publication commença en Janvier* 1835. Dans le courant de la m ême année, j ’ai indiqué,
sommairement, dans m a rélation historique (p . 289), m a d écouverte de l’espèce d e Corrientes, sans lui imposer .de nom botanique. Aussi ai-je éprouvé
depuis u n e véritable, peine, lorsque, en 1837, je vis p résenter à l’Académie de s Sciences m a plan te d e la Province de Moxos, sous le nom pompeux
de Victoria reyia, donné p a r M. Lindley. J e m’empressai de réclamer la p riorité d e la découverte du genre, e t fis insérer u n article dans VEcho du monde
savant, renvoyant à ce que j ’avais imprimé en 1835. Néanmoins, ma réclamation ayant éveillé l’a ttention de s Anglais, e t sachant que de fortes promesses ont
etc faites p ar eux pour obtenir de dévancer la France dam la dénomination de la seconde espèce, j e n’ai pa s voulu ta rd e r plus long-temps à la faire connaître^
e t craignant q ue les importantes occupations de M. Brongnia rt n e 1’empjcha ssent d e la p ublie r promptement, j ’a i c ru devoir lui donner u n nom; laissant
à faire à m on savant collaborateur la déscription détaillée des caractères botaniques.”
H e then gives specific characters of two species, u n d e r th e name o f Victoria, viz., V. Oruziana (Orbigny), an d V. regia (Lindley). I f th e above
expression o f M. D’Orbigny, quoted in Italics ( it is n o t q u ite clear to. u s) b e intended to imply th a t “ les, Anglais ” -were. anxious to steal a march
u pon him, in th e publication o f a second species o f Victoria, he is certainly un d e r a g re a t m istake ; for we believe th a t tfo. one b u t M. D ’Orbigny ever
imaginea th a t there was a second species. W e gave this opinion in th e Botanical Magazine (Tabs. 4275, 4278), and Mr. S pruc e confinas it in th e
le tte r w hich w e have extracted.
I n tiie number o f th e Athenaum,.literary journal, for Sept. 9th,. 1837, a t p . 661, is th e first printed allusion th a t we can discover to th e plant, unde r
th e generic name o f Victoria. I t is there stated, unde r th e h e ad o f •“ Botanical Society,” tha t, “ a t a meeting o f th e Society, he ld on Thursday,
J . E . Gray, Esq., F.R.S., Pre sident, in th e chair,, th e Secretary re ad a communication from Mr. R. H. Schomburgk, corresponding Member o f
th e Geographical Society, d a ted New Amsterdam, Berbice, May 11, 1837, on a new genus allied to th e Water-Lily, and n am ed Victoria Regina, b y
permission o f H e r Majesty. ' T h e communication was accompanied b y magnificent drawings o f th e plant, one-half th e natural size,” Ac. Then follows
th e extract from Schomburgk’s letter, which is quoted above, detailing its discovery, and giving a p o pula r description. In th e Edinburgh Magazine
o f Zoology and Botany, th e number for October, 1837, “ Miscellaneous Articles,” p. 373, contains a further notice o f the plant, unde r the same
appeiiatiOn, with th e addition o f “ V. Regina, Schomburgk ;” and again unde r th e same name, and in th e November number, 1837, accompanied by a
redubed b u t colouredfrgure, from Schomburgk’s drawing, said pla te b e ing inscribed, evidently through error, V regali».*
.'Firmly as we b elieve th e genus Victoria to b o now established, it is to be regre tted th a t th e specific nam e t appended to it has been very differently
given in different works, though, in all instances, i t has bo rn e a. similar regal signification. Mr. Jo h n Edward Gray, for a time, claimed th e right o f
p riority for Victoria Begina, not, as he says, on his own account, b u t on beha lf o f Schomburgk, the discoverer, who also first proposed th a t this splendid
new Water-IMy should b e dedic a ted to th e Queen. Mr. Gray’s explanatiomappeared in th e Annals o f Natural History, above cited, for 1850, p. 140, and
i t commences with th e remark th a t th e p lan t has th re e names, “ very nearly alike, and th a t two o f them would appe a r to have originated in
an error o f th e press.”
T h e casé stands briefly thus. T h e earliest mention o f th e name Victoria Regina, “ by permission o f H e r Majesty,” (without any author’s name
attached to i t) appears in th e September number o f th e , Athenasum, for.l837,>$jfreres we find a b rie f popula r description, b u t no figure, nor botanical,
generic, or specific characters f while, in the index o f th e same volume,tit is.'printed V. regia; this is one o f the two errors mentioned by Mr. Gray.
In th e same year, O ctober 1837, th e p lan t is noticed in th e Edinburgh Magazine o f Zoology and B otany, also in November, as Victoria Regina (Schomburgk),
accompanied b y a red u c ed figjire, b u t lacking a b otanical description, while the plate is unfortunately named V regalia. True it is, th a t in th e Proceedings
o f the Botanical Society o f London, th e numbe r issued in, o? b a r in g date, 1889, does furnish a specific Character, a t p. 44, an d there is also a plate,
with analyses o f th e flower, and the name V , Regina is expressed as th a t o f Schomburgk.
¡Long, however, before th a t period; indeed as early as d u rin g th e ye a r 1837, D r. Lindley issued, “ for private circulation,” twenty-five copies,
in imperial fòlio, two leaves being devoted to th e figure, p repa red from Schomburgk’s drawings, and two to descriptive matter, exhibiting, with all the
clearness which th e specimens a t his c óm ^ a n d cordd display, the^ distinction between Victoria and Euryale. Dr. Lindley gave th e name as Victoria
regia, and ids description is followed b y th e observation : ^ “ Some drawings were sen t home b y Mr. Schomburgk, in illustration o f th e previous account.
H e considered th e p lan t to b e a species o f Nymphaa, and was desirous th a t it sh o u ld be distinguished b y the name o f the Queen, a wish with which
H e r Majesty was graciously pleased to comply. B u t it proves, upo n an examination o f th e drawings and p ape rs which the Royal Geographical Society
has p la c ed in my hands for publication, th a t th e p lan t is n o t a Nympluea, as Mr. Schomburgk h ad supposed, b u t a new and w ell marked genus. F o r this
reason, i t appears to m e th a t th e objept 'of th e discoverer w i l be b e s t a ttained, b y suppressing th e name , o f Nymphma Victoria, unde r which he had
proposed to distinguish tiie plant, a nd by embodying H e r Majesty’s name in th e usual w ay, in th a t o f the genus. I therefore propose to call it Victoria regia.”
In February, 1838, in th e Miscellaneous Notices o f Vol. 24 o f th e Botanical Register, Dr. Lindley publishes th e memoir ju s t alluded to, with this
prefatory remark. “ Gre a t inte re st h aving b e en exc ited b y th e stories told in th e newspapers o f this extraordinary flower, the following account o f i t has
been tak en from a m emtm u pon th e subject, o f wliich twenty-five copies only have b e en privately circulated,1 &c.
So th a t w e have, during th e y e a r 1837, on th e one hand, a published notice in.September o f V. Regina b y Mr. Gray and S chomburgk, without, indeed,
an indication o f those distinguishing m arks which, by s tric t botanical laws, are requisite to give a claim Of priority on th a t ground, b u t amply sufficient
to designate the*plant in ten d ed ; and; on th e other, a littie .later in th e ye a r (the copy was presented to H e r Majesty in November, 1837, and we
presume was th e first copy issued), a tru ly scientific description and figure, b y Dr. Lindley, b u t only printed for private distribution. Things being so,
I h a d little hesitation in sta ting m y opinion in th e Kew Gitrden Miscellanyt th a t th e naMéATictoria Regina should have the preference.
,-AiS ffe í re c en t enquiries o f Mr. J . E . Gray have, however, le d ,to a different re su lt; the se enquiries are fully detailed in Taylor’s Annals o f Natural
History.S I t th e re appears, from an inspection o f th e books o f th e Royal Geographical Society, and is now first made known to Mr. Gray and to th e
public, th a t th a t body to w hom Mr. Schomburgk consigned his drawings, &c., t o b e u sed as th e ^ th ó u g h t p rope r ; be fore th ey .were s ent to the Botanical
Society, pla c ed them in D r. L in d le /s h ands, for th e purpose o f being published b y him, and with th e understanding th a t th e p lan t was to be dedicated
to H e r Most Gracious Majesty th e Queen. I t foflows th a t th e name Victoria regia is to b e adopted, and it is consequently here unhesitatingly restored.#