PREFACE TO THE SECOXD VOLUME. 



specific description would have been. On the other hand, in the 

 matter of Fish, from the importance of the subject, an attempt 

 has been made to give the more salient characters of the species 

 hitherto recorded from Burma, though such abbreviated descrip- 

 tions are never very satisfactory. To those, however, who have 

 not access to the valuable works of Dr. Day on the Fish of Burma, 

 it is hoped that even these scanty extracts may be of service. 



In Botany, likewise, it will be noticed that some orders are 

 very incomplete ; but on the whole our knowledge of the Flora 

 of Burma is more advanced than of its Fauna, except perhaps 

 as regards the Vertebrata; and foremost among local workers, to 

 whom we are indebted for a systematized knowledge of the Burmese 

 Flora, stands out the name of the late S. Kurz, whose papers on 

 the Burmese Flora in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 

 constitute tlie groundwork of the present volume. 



Since writing the Preface of the First Volume, I have re- 

 ceived a work which, as I have quoted it occasionally, I may as 

 well here refer to : 'A Manual of Indian Timbers, by J. S. 

 Gamble. Calcutta, 1881.' The manifest ability of this work 

 needs no testimony from me, and it will doubtless be hailed as an 

 acceptable contribution to Burmese botany from the forester's point 

 of view. The names of Kurz and Brandis are of course prominent 

 in it ; but if a candid critic may venture to say so, its main defect 

 seems to be its departmental character, as we are told that the 

 descriptions were mostly "dictated by Dr. Brandis." This may, 

 perhaps, have the recommendation of recording the experience and 

 ideas of that veteran forester, but it is a plan destructive of 

 originality, and by no means calculated to promote independent 

 research, or that exposure of past errors, either scientific or de- 

 partmental, wliich one not unreasonably looks for in a new work 

 of this sort. To give a single instance, I may point out that 

 though the rate of growth of Teak is treated at great length 

 (I had nigh said ad nauseam), yet the important question of 

 girdling, and its pernicious effect on the timber of trees so treated, 

 is not so much as referred to. Naturally this view of the results 

 of girdling is not likely to be prominently set forth in a work 



