460 Retrospectwe Criticism, 



Stephens's " Illustraiions of Bntish Entomologi/" — Sir, I am not sorry 

 to see the subject of Stephens's Illustrations of British Entomology taken 

 up in your Magazine (p. 303.), and the gross imposition practised on the 

 public, by the recent mode of publishing the numbers of that work, exposed 

 to view, as it ought to be, by the honest and spirited remarks of your cor- 

 respondent, Mr. Davis. Like him, I have taken in the work from its com- 

 mencement, and like him, too, am thoroughly sick of it, in consequence of 

 having long been aware how unfairly the subscribers have been treated by 

 the author. There has been an undue increase in the price of the num- 

 bers (i. e. an increase out of proportion to the additional quantity of 

 matter), a reduction in the number of the plates, a mosu unparalleled 

 irregularity in the periods and mode of publication. Then we have had 

 apologies and excuses, explanations and evasions, without end, and pro- 

 raises of future reparation from time to time, which, up to this moment, 

 have not been fulfilled. Mr. Stephens, in short, has contrived so to mystify 

 and perplex the subject, that I, for one, have found it next to impossible 

 to keep a regular debtor and creditor account between him and his sub- 

 scribers. Mr. Davis, however, has had the patience to unravel the intri- 

 cacies of this mystery of imposition ; and the thanks of the public are due 

 to that gentleman for the laborious task he has undertaken, and for the 

 plain straight-forward manner in which he has accomplished it. I shall be 

 curious to see whether any, and what, reply will be made by Mr. Stephens 

 to the charges brought against him. Of one thing, however, let him be 

 warned, viz. not any longer to " throw dust in the eyes " of the public ; 

 nor to attempt (as he has done) to persuade us that the alterations he has 

 adopted in the mode of publication are to the advantage of his subscribers. 

 This would only be adding insult to injury; for it is quite clear, — and 

 Mr. Stephens must know it, however he may attempt to disguise the 

 matter, — that every departure from his original plan has been, in fact, a 

 fraud upon the public, and an artifice to extract money from the pockets of 

 his purchasers. Does Mr. Stephens himself believe that he would have 

 obtained one in ten of his present subscribers, if they could have calculated 

 before-hand on the work being conducted in the manner it has been for 

 some time past ? For myself, I regret having taken in the work, though I 

 think highly of its merits ; and could I find a convenient stopping place 

 (which, however, the author takes pretty good care shall not be afforded), 

 I should resolve with Mr. Davis to discontinue the numbers. I really am 

 sorry to see a respectable gentleman, a most able and acute entomologist, 

 like Mr. Stephens, disgrace himself by practising such mean artifices ; 

 which, 1 can assure him, injures not only his own reputation, but the cause 

 of science, by tending to deter the public from patronising scientific peri- 

 odicals in general. I have so often had my " fingers burnt," that, partial 

 as I am to the sort of works in question, I have almost come to the deter- 

 mination (and in this I am not singular) never again to commence taking 

 in a periodical publication on natural history, unless some substantial 

 pledge is given on the part of the author, that he will faithfully fulfil his 

 engagements, without departing from his original terms. Yours, — J Pur- 

 chaser of ** Stephens'* s Illustrations.^'' July 4. 1831. 



Geological Relations of Plants. — Sir, In a late letter to you, in Gard. 

 Mag. vol. vii. p. 372., I adverted to the valuable letter on the geological 

 afRnitaes of plants by Mr. Thomson, which appeared in Mag. Nat. Hist. 

 vol.iii. p. 410. I had the temerity there to insinuate that the learned 

 author had fallen into some slight errors, which I did not state. It has 

 since occurred to me, that it is perhaps less kind and less respectful to 

 accuse a writer of error, without pointing out what it is, than to state 

 openly what appears to the reader to be a mistake. I will now, therefore, 

 explain myself on that head. The first point whereon I should differ from 

 him would be the apathetic calmness, and almost scepticism, with which he 



