Amaryllis Treatae, or Fairy Lily, are they not Atamasco Lilies, botanically introduced since 1822 ? In Peter Henderson's " Hand-book of Plants," page 256, under Zephyranthus, we see this : " Zephyran-thus, the west wind, and anthos, a flower, Linn. Hexandria, Monogynia. Nat. Ord., Amaryllida-ceoe. One of the best species is Z. Atamasco, generally known as Amaryllis Atamasco, and in our cottage gardens as Fairy Lily. This species has beautiful pink flowers, which are produced in great abundance during the entire summer - native of Southern and Southwestern States. Z. Candida, a species with small rush-like leaves, white flowers - native to Lima and Buenos Ayres, introduced in 1822." I give this extract almost complete, from the fact that I am the collector of a bulb native here, which from comparison with bulbs bought of a dealer, advertised as A. Treatae (and submitted to him for inspection), I was induced to call those I collect A. Treatae also, and to offer to the trade as such, honestly believing I was correct in my name, but have been laughed at by learned botanists for calling it A. T., when it has been introduced as long ago as 1822 as Amaryllis Atamasco. The name A. Treatae, as I understand, was given in honor of a Mrs. Treat, who collected it in one of its native haunts (Florida) where it has been growing for hundreds of years, and sent it to a florist, who introduced this old Amaryllis under a new name to the notice of the trade, thereby giving to the public a bulb well worthy a place in every collection; but does his having named it A. Treatae forever disbar any one from calling it by its old name, Atamasco, or justify criticism if they fall into the new name, and call it as he calls it, Fairy Lily, or Amaryllis Treatae? I have been under misapprehension in having claimed this same dealer as the endorser of this bulb as true to name, from having sold him a few thousands each season as A. Treatae, and though I thought he was not the person who first told me I was in error; but the well-known Editor of the Gardeners' Monthly kindly, in one of his letters to me, said: "Are you sure the bulbs you offer for sale are the true A. T. ? Are they not most likely Amaryllis Atamasco ?" This remark startled me somewhat, for I relish not the idea of sailing under false colors; and as a safe avenue of information I beg of the learned botanists of the United States to resolve this question of all mystery, and let the floral world know if there is a difference in A. Treatae, introduced five years ago, or Amaryllis Atamasco, introduced since 1822, now 63 years ago.

I want enlightenment upon the subject, as I have hundreds of thousands of these bulbs collected for sale, and have no desire to sell under a false name. The Amyarillis I have - has bulbs ordinarily of the size of a filbert, rather flattish than oblong, and white lily-shaped flowers, and the kind Editor tells me the difference lies between the two varieties in the individual petals and flowers of Atamasco, being larger and broader than A. Treatae. Now, would not the difference in soil and climate most likely produce this result or difference ? These grown here are found in a stiff clay subsoil, overlaid by stiff, sticky black soil, whilst those obtained in lower South Carolina in sandy soil (much like that of Florida) are smaller both in bulb and flower. I do not agree with those that claim for this bulb any difference at all. Like the Crispa clematis offered this season as a novelty by several florists, it may be new to most, but it is claimed by Josiah Salter that it has been known since 1569 - a native of North America and of the Viticella type; page 131, May number Gardeners' Monthly. Also Canna Ehemanni. Curtis in his Botanical Magazine, number 1968 in 1823, gives the first illustration of it, and both are now claimed as novelties.

What are novelties anyhow ? I thought entire new plants raised from hybridizing, cross fertilization,seedlings from old plants, etc, not old, but well-known but forgotten varieties introduced under a new name, such as I believe is A. Treatse so-called now.

[The Amaryllis Treatiae must on no account be confounded with the Atamasco lily. It has been decided by such high authority as Prof. Sargent and Mr. Sereno Watson, to be an entirely distinct species; and was named by them, and not by any florist in honor of the discover, Mrs. Mary Treat, of Vineland, New Jersey, herself an excellent botanist, and one well able to tell the difference between the two. In the letter of the Editor, referred to by our correspondent, the reference to the flower was but an off-hand remark. We give the exact description of both from Chapman's new edition of the " Flora of the Southern States:"

Amaryllis Atamasco (Of Linnaeus)

Scape terete, somewhat lateral; one-flowered; leaves linear, concave, fleshy; spathe, one-leaved, two-cleft; perianth short, bell-shaped, white tinged with purple; style longer than the stamens; seeds angled. March and April. Scape 6 to 12 inches high, commonly shorter than the glossy leaves. Flower 2 to 3 inches long.

Amaryllis Treatioe (Watson)

Bulb small; leaves very narrow, only a line and a half wide, semi-terete with rounded margins, not shining; scape four to twelve inches high; flowers three inches long; its peduncle three to nine lines long. April and May.

The plants are most readily distinguished by the florist, in the rush-like leaves of Mrs. Treat's Fairy Lily. This species we believe has only been found in Florida. In beauty we think the old Atamasco the prettier. - Ed. G. M].