MITTELASTRA AND RUBACER. 231 
cretion of evasion; who will say the point was left out of view 
because of its obvious fatality to what Mr. Rydberg was con- 
tending for. I can and shall take my opponent’s part against 
every such probable assailant of his scientific candor and sin- 
cerity; for I see it to be easily possible he may not have dis- 
covered in that argument of mine anything of the pointedness 
it carries. Its momentum as an argument lies in the difference 
of meaning that subsists between such Latin word-endings as 
um and us. Itis evident that Latin endings indicating number, 
gender, etc., may chance to be slow in making their several 
impressions. Probably not until he reads, or is told, what I 
have said above, will it enter Mr. Rydberg’s thought that Mitel- 
lastra is not the feminine singular that he guessed it to be, but 
a neuter plural. 
The paragraph that occupies the greater part of page 166 I 
can make nothing of beyond a curious display of innocency of 
the art of word construction and a medley of self-contradictions, 
save only that into the midst of this marvel of a paragraph there 
is thrust this refreshing bit of mother wit: “If I prefer to call 
the old Rubus odoratus L. a raspberry-maple instead of a maple- 
raspberry, I am well within my rights.” I am truly glad of this 
fine pronouncement, because it can not be disputed; but it can 
never have the least bearing on the plain fact that by that 
adjective ending wm, Rubacer is a maple in its meaning. 
More than two pages are given to the statements regarding 
the identity of Rubacer and Bossekia, They reveal to the care- 
ful reader much more of their author’s mind and purpose than 
I shall here point out. One or two things are said in such just 
criticism of me that, were I sensitive and vain-glorious as I 
might be, I should feel deeply humiliated. At the same time, 
in this part of the paper, rash and unwarranted statements fol- 
low one upon another in continued and close succession. Here 
is a selection from among them: 
1. “There is nothing in Necker’s diagnosis that points directly 
to Rubus odoratus.” This is untrue. 
