265 



HATIDWICKE'S SC IEN CE- GO S SI P. 



[Dec. 1, 186S, 



" The reason' why " in both these cases, and in 

 many more which might be cited, is, that people are 

 content to accept as gospel any published statements 

 without troubling to see for themselves whether 

 "such things are." They are not even as praise- 

 worthy as the hero of old, who " made the giants 

 first, and then he killed them." They leave to others 

 the trouble of making and killing the giants, and then 

 they take to themselves the spoils without stopping 

 to consider whether or no they be worth the having. 

 Perhaps one of the largest of this kind of giant ever 

 manufactured was the Upas-tree of Java. Its really 

 deleterious properties, exaggerated in the first place 

 by its original discoverers, were magnified to a start- 

 ling extent : it destroyed all vegetable life for a 

 distance of ten or twelve miles ; birds flying over it 

 were killed ; no one dared to approach it : yet as 

 specimens are now to be seen in our botanical 

 gardens, we may form our own conclusions as to 

 the truth of these astonishing statements. But 

 perhaps some excuse may be made for writers on 

 foreign plants, who cannot be expected to know from 

 personal observation all that they state. Unfortu- 

 nately, however, it is our own British plants that 

 are treated worst of all in this respect. Had Job 

 lived at the present day he would have expressed his 

 wish regarding his enemy somewhat differently : not 

 content with desiring that he might write " a book," 

 he would have added "on wild flowers" ; his revenge 

 would then have been complete. 



Perhaps some of my readers may now turn the 

 tables on me, and say, Why do you harp upon so well- 

 worn a string ? We know that accurate observation 

 is necessary ; surely you need not bring that again 

 before us ? But I do so just because I think it is 

 needed ; and so long as books and articles are pub- 

 lished in which this principle is overlooked and 

 ignored, so long will it be necessary to draw attention 

 to its importance. If people would only describe 

 what they really see, there would be no need of 

 romance to make their writings interesting ; and a 

 page of real observation is worth a volume of mere 

 compilation. 



Why is it that novelists and others, not content 

 with distinguishing themselves in their proper 

 province, must describe natural objects as they are 

 not ? When we are told that " the red berries of 

 the wild convolvulus hung in long festoons upon 

 the hedges," we know that the author refers to 

 something which he really saw, although he attri- 

 butes the berries to a wrong plant ; but when we 

 read of "the bindweed, azure-hued as the blue 

 sky above us," decorating the hedges, we know that 

 the imagination of the writer must have been 

 drawn upon to a considerable extent. I once read 

 a descriptiou of a Pyrola, in a novel of which 1 

 forget the name, which quite opened my eyes as to 

 the character of that plant. Here again it may be 

 said that we have no right to object to people 



writing what they please, that we cannot expect 

 every one to be a botanist ; but we have a right to 

 demand, and we can expect that they should de- 

 scribe what they see, not what they imagine they 

 have seen. 



" Why the name of horse-chestnut should have 

 been given to an object which the horse abominates 

 as a food, we do not know." This we find in a 

 recent number of a standard medical journal. Had 

 the writer been acquainted, ever so slightly, with the 

 names of plants, and their meanings, he would 

 scarcely have connected the name " horse-chestnut " 

 with the animal which supplies the first half of the 

 word. The many words to which " horse " is affixed' 

 in all of •which its meaning is the same, would surely 

 have explained it : e. g., horse-godmother, horse- 

 leech, horse-fly, horse-mint, horse-thyme, horse-knob, 

 horse-radish, horse-mushroom. Just as the affix 

 " dog " signifies something spurious or worthless, so 

 horse conveys the idea of something large or coarse. 

 Horse-chestnut, therefore, is simply a large or 

 coarse chestnut ; the superficial resemblance which 

 its fruit bears to that of the sweet, or Spanish, 

 chestnut having doubtless suggested the name. It 

 is only fair, however, to state that some of the 

 older writers refer to its use in eastern countries 

 as a cure for " shortnesse of winde" in horses. 

 Another origin of the name was given subsequently, 

 in the journal before referred to, which is so in- 

 genious that it seems a pity that it should not be 

 correct. The writer says : — " The tree is truly 

 designated the horse-chestnut, from the following 

 simple fact, viz., that the bark of every twig of a 

 year's growth, bears marks of resemblance to the 

 hoof of the horse with the shoe and the impression 

 of the nails. Every leaf that falls from the tree 

 leaves a similar mark on the stem, so that there is 

 no difficulty in finding it." The resemblance re- 

 ferred to is indeed very curious ; it is not only left 

 by the leaf upon the stem, but may be distinctly 

 seen upon the leafstalk, where it joins the branch. 

 Nevertheless, it seems scarcely likely that this 

 should have been the cause of the name, which 

 seems to have originated with the "nut," rather 

 than with the tree itself. 



And while I am upon the subject of names — a 

 subject to which I hope to return at length in a 

 future paper — I would just remark upon the con- 

 fusion which seems to exist between the names Horse- 

 tail and Marestail. The Horsetails are the various 

 species oiEquisetum, flowerless plants, occurring in 

 fields and woods, on banks and heaths, in dry places 

 and wet; the Marestail, on the contrary, is a 

 flowering plant {llippuris vulgaris), growing in 

 water. The names had the same origin, from the 

 superficial resemblance existing between the two ; 

 the llippuris, from its producing seed, being called 

 the "Female Horse-taile" by Gerarde and 

 the old herbalists. " Modem botanists," says Dr. 



