Hetrospective Criticism. 273 



tune, to the publication of illustrative works, without being condemned in 

 this manner. A. Y. R. may not know that such ])ul)lications are always a 

 certain loss to their projectors : the booksellers know this full well, and 

 will never have any thing to do with them. Your correspondent A. Y. R., 

 and " a Purchaser of Periodicals," whom I take to be one and the same, 

 need not, however, fear this " exorbitant tax " will continue, or that the 

 science of the country will be much burthened vvith illustrative works. 

 I leave the Zoological Illusirations out of the question ; they are only pretty 

 pictures, fit to copy from, and sketchy descriptions : but I could name some 

 others, of much higher pretensions, which, to the disgrace of patrons of 

 periodicals, and of the true legitimate science of the country, are most 

 unworthily neglected ; they are, in fact, all but discontinued. Why is this ? 

 Because the grown-up public are satisfied with infants' food, in the shape 

 of cheap cohipilations, crude translations, wonders of the insect world, &c. 

 &c., with such like amusing trifles, fit only for children. While the > ■ ■ 

 of Dr. H., the I— Z— of G. H., the S. C. of G. S., and half a dozen 

 others, which would reflect honour upon any age or country, are left to 

 languish and decay. If such a mighty passion for natural history has 

 really sprung up among us, why do not the different public subscription 

 libraries, provincial institutions and societies, and wealthy individuals, pur- 

 chase and uphold such books ? Is there no writer in your Magazine with 

 the abilities and the courage to point out which of all these countless peri- 

 odicals deserve encouragement, and which do not ? Let A. Y. R. take up 

 this subject, for I suspect he is equal to it, and he will confer a signal benefit 

 on science. Let him give you a critical list, and then let all the provincial 

 societies make a choice of some one, or two, or more, as their funds may 

 permit, and send their orders to the publishers. We shall then see some real 

 patronage of science excited, and for the highest purpose, the increase of 

 knowledge. But so long as this merit is assumed by societies which merely 

 arrange stuffed skins in their museums, or import wild beasts, and receive 

 money for exhibiting them afterwards, we must in vain look for any real 

 encouragement to natural history. Yours, &c- — W. S. February y 1831. 



The Natural Productions indigenous to Britain. — Sir, The subject which 

 your learned correspondent T. E. L. has entered upon, in his observations 

 upon the "Natural Productions indigenous to Britain," is one so interesting 

 to every native of this country, and so instructive generally, that I cannot 

 let his paper slip through my hands without making a few remarks upon it. 



In every meal which a man in the middle ranks of society usually takes, 

 there is one, if not more, of its ingredients the produce of a foreign country. 

 His breakfast and evening meal are supplied either by China or Jamaica ; 

 and an indispensable part of his dinner, though at present naturalised to 

 our soil, once found its way, in some " rich argosy," from the wilds of 

 America. The trees which compose the shady coverts and bowers of our 

 gardens are principally foreign ; the laurel, and those graceful varieties of 

 shrubs which adorn our pleasure grounds, have all derived their birth in dis^ 

 tant lands. Many of our larger trees are aliens, the silver poplar of Italy, and 

 the lusty poplar of Ohio, the chestnut, and many others. From T. E. L.'s 

 opinion that the abies and the fagus are not natives of Britain, I feel much 

 inclined to differ. In the first place, I conceive that abies is the common 

 pine, and fagus the beech. That the pine is indigenous to this country, the 

 daily discoveries of embedded forests of that wood declare to us ; and our 

 peat bogs, which were formed centuries probably before any connection 

 that the inhabitants of this country had with strangers, bear testimony to 

 this fact. That the beech is indigenous I feel less confident; but the opi- 

 nion of Evelyn * bears me through in my supposition that it is. There is a 



* Vide Evelyn's Sylva, Hunter's edit., vol. i. 

 Vol. IV. — No. 19/ t 



