331 



with an introductory note by Nath. L. Britten (8vo. New 



York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890). 



This work is an illustration of what has been styled " Delatin- 

 ized Botany." In it no descriptive terms are used other than 

 those consisting of common EnHish words. Such works are 



^ W. ^WWiW.V^.X ^"^ 



written and consulted under the apprehension that there is an 

 easier and more convenient way of expressing and receiving 

 scientific ideas than by the use of scientific language. That this 

 is a serious misapprehension there is no doubt. It belies the 

 fundamental principle of scientific language, whose precise object 

 is the reaching of the result by the shortest and most convenient 

 method consistent with accuracy. It is true that certain results 

 more or less valuable maybe attained by the method of this author; 

 but even where the results arc not in themselves erroneous they 

 must in some cases involve false teaching. There is a way of 

 compromising by the admission of the minimum number of tech- • 

 nical terms, using them only where it is necessary to avoid giving 

 a false impression — which seems to us much better. For instance 

 Mr. Ncwhall substitutes for obovate the term " inverse egg-shaped." 

 How unfortunate ! An q^^ is ovoid — solid — while ovate refers 

 to a surface. And then, who knows which is the " reverse " way 

 of an &g^'^ The prefix ob in obovate does not refer to the rever- 

 sion of the Qgg, but to the reversion of the ovate shape of the leaf. 

 Both ovate and obovate are the technical creations of scientific 

 language, created for the very reason that they were needed, and 

 in this form as the most convenient one. How much easier, as 

 well as better, for the author to have taught his readers the use of 

 the terms ovoid, ovate and ob, thus elevating them and his subject 

 at the same time, than to have thus misled the one and degraded 

 the other ! Is this not ob-education ? But it is not intended to 

 decry the attempt to provide useful works for those unable to study 

 nature scientifically. Neither is it intended to decry the value of 

 •. Newhall's work ; but only to criticise certain false methods 

 whicli we are sorry to see receiving his support. On the whole 

 we can heartily endorse the statements in the introductory note 

 that there is great need of such a popular work. We anticipate 

 and bespeak for the work a large sale, but- we hope that the 

 author will in a subsequent edition substitute graceful and accu- 



M 



