1882.J 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



371 



Natqral History and Science. 



EDITORIAL NOTES. 



Mr. E. D. Cope and the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences of Philadelphia.— On two occasions, 

 recently, the Gardener's Monthly called atten- 

 tion to some misstatements of the American 

 Naturalist in regard to the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences. 



In the November number of that magazine 

 the following appears: "The Editor of the 

 Gardener's Monthly, who is also a contributor 

 to the New York Independent, has several times 

 recently presented himself as an antagonist of 

 the Naturalist. Being placed by our critic in the 

 excellent company of Mr. Darwin, Professor 

 Gray and Mr. Riley, we have permitted our 

 friend to enjoy the diversion all to himself. We 

 had hoped that the failure of his attempted cor- 

 rections of these well-known authorities would 

 have inspired him with a little caution. But we 

 now think it time to apply the language used by 

 the late Mr. Darwin in a letter to one of our 

 editors, that this gentleman ' is the most inaccur- 

 ate man he had ever known.' 



" We think Mr. Darwin a little severe, how 

 ever, when he says 'he has done more injury to 

 science in America than he had ever done it 

 good.' If he had said Philadelphia instead of 

 America we should have been more disposed to 

 agree with him." 



It has recently been stated in the Independent 

 — not by the writer of this, or by his instigation 

 —that though these editorials are nominally 

 by "A. S. Packard, Jr. and Ed. D. Cope," Prof. 

 Packard disclaims all knowledge of them, and 

 we repeat this in justice to that gentleman. 



The question at issue between the Gardener's 

 Monthly and the American Naturalist is whether 

 or not its attack on the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences of Philadelphia was just. The Natu- 

 ralist cannot be allowed to evade the issue 

 under cover of an attack on the editor person- 

 ally. This attack would not be noticed at all, 

 but for the injustice it does to the distinguished 

 gentleman named. Whether or not Mr. Darwin 

 ever wrote juat as he is made to appear here 

 may well be questioned; but even if he did. 



"the Editor of the Gardener's Monthly "well 

 understands how, in moments of pique, to which 

 the most amiable of men are exposed, they will 

 exhibit in the privacy of confidential corres- 

 pondence weaknesses they would be ashamed to 

 show to all the world. The one who unveils this 

 infirmity is the one to be despised. If the 

 reputation of the " Editor of the Gardener's 

 Monthly " were all there was at stake we should 

 rest here. All this he intends to leave to the 

 unbiassed decision of those who shall come after 

 when he is gone, and who are but boys now. 



But it is only justice to the memory of Mr, 

 Darwin to say that he was sorry for the sharp 

 letters he had hastily written, and that the 

 writer believes from Mr. Darwin's correspond- 

 ence that he had his regard to the last. 



So also as regards the other two gentlemen to 

 whom Mr. Cope attempts to cling in his descent. 

 There are too many evidences of their respect 

 and esteem, both published and unpublished, 

 for the " Editor of the Gardener's Monthly " to 

 permit himself to be worried, even should they 

 be found in a moment of weakness, where Mr. 

 Cope has placed Mr. Darwin. It is pleasant to 

 feel that one has the good will of his fellow- 

 workers in any cause; but "the Editor of the 

 Gardener's Monthly" would despise himself, 

 as the gentlemen named in their cooler moments 

 would despise him, if he should attempt to se- 

 cure their applause by being the mere echo of 

 their sentiments. Free discussion is welcome 

 only to friends worth having. 



As to the matter of the scientific diflferences 

 of opinion which the "Editor of the Gardener's 

 Monthly" may have had with the gentlemen 

 named, they are matters of record, and these 

 gentlemen are no doubt as perfectly well satis- 

 fied as he is that posterity shall judge as to their 

 accuracy. The difi'erence with Professor Cope 

 is of a totally different character. While his re- 

 marks heretofore on the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences, and now on the Editor, were inspired 

 by malignity — their's were dictated merely by an 

 honest desire for truth. 



Hybrid Nepenthes. — In our former remarks 

 on the curious family of Nepenthes, or Pitcher 



