S2 



THE GARDENERS MONTHLY 



[March, 



Literature, Travels I Personal Notes. 



COMMUNICA TIONS. 



IPROF. C. V. RILEY AND THE YUCCA 

 MOTH. 



BY PKOFESSOR C. V. RILEY, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



The above is the title of an editorial in th e 

 October number of the Gardener's Monthly. 

 Though containing reflections upon others, as 

 well as myself, I have taken no notice of it till 

 now, which I hope will be evidence to you that 

 in what I now write I have no personal feeling 

 beyond the friendliness that has for so many 

 years existed between us. 



First, then, it is to be regretted that you are 

 not more careful in your quotations. You 

 charge me with using the following language in 

 the paper which calls forth your comment: 

 "misrepresentation," "gross misstatements," 

 " misconstruction unjustifiable." There is not 

 one of these expressions in my paper, and 

 this fact very well illustrates the inaccuracy and 

 looseness of your article. The expressions which 

 you correctly quote, viz. : " unscientific state- 

 ments," " pure misstatements," and " famous " 

 ones, are more than justified by the text of my 

 criticism, and (as I think you will admit upon 

 reflection) are not in that case of such a charac- 

 ter as to warrant your charge that said criticism 

 is an " attack " upon you. If you 'deny this as- 

 sertion, please publish the criticism, and leave 

 the judgment with your readers. 



The gravest charge in your editorial alluded 

 to is, however, not against me, but against the Per- 

 manent Secretary of the American Association for 

 the Advancement of Science, who has during 

 so many years earned the confidence and re- 

 ceived the approbation of the Association for his 

 impartial editing of its proceedings. You say, 

 " The volume has just been issued, and besides 

 •the paper ordered to appear are copious foot- 

 notes added, which the ofl&cers of the society did 

 not order in. Thus we have the anomaly of a 

 volume of ' transactions ' issuing a paper which 

 was never transacted." Not to comment on the 

 oddity of the sentence, or the " anomaly " of a 

 volume issuing a paper, I must remark that the 

 statement in the sentence is utterly false. 



My paper appears as it was read and pre- 

 sented, though in order to occupy less time, as 



stated on the occasion, the foot-notes were but 

 briefly referred to and the substance only of the 

 more technical and classificatory material was 

 given. Having been a member both of the Sec- 

 tional and Standing Committees which passed 

 upon the papers, I know that the oflBcers of the 

 Association ordered the paper printed without 

 reading the whole of it. This, as you are very 

 well aware, is the common practice even with 

 papers not read from manuscript, but of which 

 the substance merely is given by the author be- 

 fore some particular section of the Association. 

 Large discretion is necessarily left with the Secre- 

 tary, on whom your unjust accusation really 

 falls. 



The approbation which you offer to the officers 

 of the Association in the concluding paragraph 

 of said editorial is, therefore, as awkward and 

 disingenuous as the compliment you pay me, for 

 I beg to assure you, in conclusion, that my 

 criticisms were not, as you put it, " simply a 

 thoughtless act of impropriety," since they were 

 well weighed and, in my judgment, well de- 

 served. 



They give the gist of my comment in unre- 

 ported discussion before the Association of some 

 of your communications thereto, during the 

 past few years, and if, as I believe and hope, you 

 are working for the truth rather than the en- 

 forcement of any pet views or theories, you will 

 find room in the columns of your magazine for 

 this communication, and I will then follow it by 

 a brief statement of the points at issue be- 

 tween us. 



[We must decline Professor Riley's offer to 

 continue the discussion of this subject. It will 

 be apparent to the reader that the only excuse 

 the editor can offer for the admission of even this 

 letter is, that some personal feeling might be at^ 

 tributed to him by declining it. Those who care 

 enough for the subject to see how " utterly 

 false " the editor's statements were, will of course 

 read the "Proceedings," and judge for them- 

 selves.— Ed. G. M.] 



THE WILD GARDEN. 



LETTER FROM MR. W. ROBINSON, THE EDITOR OF 

 THE GARDEN. 



I had never much reason to suppose that you 



