Humsoipt, BonrpLanp AND KunTH 593 
and the Compositae only ; was it any wonder, then, that Cassini re- 
garded the “extraordinary precipitancy ” of Kunth, in presenting 
this copy to the Academy; as a decidedly personal affair ? Cassini 
criticised Kunth for issuing the work in this way, in loose sheets, 
with a manuscript title, and without plates ; in the folio form, too, 
“qui n’est probablement consacré qu’a un petit nombre d’exem- 
plaires,”” while the quarto is the one more generally distributed 
and usually quoted. But especially did he protest against the 
recognition of this method of publication, as it contained no guar- 
antee that the work as finally issued to the public would be identi- 
cal with the copy presented to the Academy. 
Kunth insisted that Volume IV was printed simply because 
the funds were available and the manuscript had been completed for 
Several years; he pledged his honor that the work as finally issued 
to the public would be identical with the copy presented to the 
Academy, except for the alteration of one short and unimportant 
Paragraph to which Cassini had objected; and he further molli- 
fied the latter by presenting him with a copy of the volume in 
dispute, on the first of December, 1818. On his part Cassini 
agreed to accept the latter date as the actual date of publication. 
A delicate question is here involved. We cannot insist that this 
volume was not published in 1818 because it was not offered for 
Sale at that time, for some works whose due publication is never 
- questioned (Linnaeus’ “‘ Hortus Cliffortianus”’ is a famous exam- 
ple) were never offered for sale until at length second-hand copies 
fame into the market. It is universally agreed that as long as 
all copies of a printed work remain in the hands of the author, its 
Status is the same as that of a manuscript, even if he permits it to 
be inspected by others. But does the distribution of one or two 
Copies constitute publication? The question here is almost iden- 
tical with that involving the date of publication of Fournier's 
_“ Mexicanas Plantas, Pars II. Gramineae.” This bears the date 
1886 upon the title-page, and was not accessible to the general 
‘Public until that year; but Bentham had a copy of the text as 
farly as 188 I, and repeatedly cited it ; nor is it certain that other 
complimentary copies were not issued in advance. 
__ We come now to consider the single change in Volume IV 
After it was first printed. A note, near the bottom of page 243, 
