← Table of contents
New-England's rarities discovered

Note 15 — INTRODUCTION.

Reading edition

Mention of New-England plants may be found in earlier writers than Cornuti or Josselyn; but what is said is now rarely available. Gosnold’s expedition was in 1602; and the writer of the account of it tells us that the island upon which his party proposed to settle (Cuttyhunk, one of the Elizabeth Islands) was covered with “oaks, ashes, beech, walnut, witch-hazel, sassafrage, and cedars, with divers others of unknown names;” beside “wild pease, young sassafrage, cherry-trees, vines, eglantine, gooseberry-bushes, hawthorn, honeysuckles, with others of the like quality;” as also “strawberries, rasps, ground-nuts, alexander, surrin, tansy, &c., without count.”—Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. xxviii. p. 76. And so the writer of Mourt’s Relation, in 1620, speaks of “sorrel, yarrow, carvel, brook-lime, liverwort, watercresses, &c.”, as noticed, “in winter,” however, at Plymouth.—Hist. Coll. vol. viii. p. 221. There is much here which is true enough, though the “eglantine” of the first writer is an evident mistake, as doubtless also the “carvel” of the other; but we have no reason to suppose that either of these passages ever had any scientific value. Josselyn, so far as his Botany goes, does not belong to this class of writers. There are important parts of his account of our plants, in which we know with certainty what he intended to tell us; and, farther, that this was worth the telling. And the credit which fairly belongs to the new genera of American plants, in some sort indicated by him, shall illustrate as well those other portions of his work where what he meant is a matter rather of deduction from his particulars, such as they are, in the light of his only here-and-there-cited authorities, than of plain fact. His English names—common, and perhaps often indefinite, as they strike us—had more of scientific value, in botanical hands at least, when he wrote, than now; and, there is good reason to suppose, were meant to indicate that the plants intended, or in some cases the genera to which they belonged, were the same with those published, under the same names, by Gerard, Johnson, and Parkinson.

Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings