CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. 261 



plants, being taken from their more minute organs, is not a proof 

 that they constitute only a single species. It seems to be our 

 business to decide upon the probable distinctness of plants before 

 we attempt to define them ; to make the species afford the character, 

 not the character form the species." 



The sixth (1867), seventh (1874), and eighth (1881) editions 

 were reviewed at some length in this Journal on their appearance 

 by Mr. Carruthers, Dr. Trinien, and myself respectively,* and the 

 principal changes which accompanied them duly noted. One sen- 

 tence may be quoted from the last of these which is applicable to 

 every edition: "The words 'corrected throughout' which appear 

 upon the title-page are always amply justified by the contents of 

 the volume ; and although many of the alterations introduced into 

 each successive edition seem in themselves trifling, they show a 

 gratifying anxiety for accuracy in detail, and that no pains have 

 been spared to ensure a satisfactory result." Babington's depre- 

 catory note regarding these alterations and the modest statement 

 of his aims with which it concludes are very characteristic : " The 

 progress of our knowledge has caused changes in the nomenclature 

 in successive editions of this book and in the author's views of the 

 value of forms — as species or varieties. The inconvenience of these 

 alterations to all, especially to statistical botanists, is fully ad- 

 mitted ; but the avithor does not know of any mode by which it can 

 be avoided if each edition is to be brought up as completely as is in 

 his power to the contemporary knowledge of our plants. No alter- 

 ations have been admitted until careful study has convinced the 

 author that they are required. He may have fallen into error, but 

 has earnestly endeavoured to discover the truth." With regard to 

 nomenclature, however, Babington was by no means a rigorist, as 

 will be seen by a reference to his paper on the subject in this 

 Journal for 1888, pp. 369-371, although in the case of the trans- 

 ference of a species he supported "the plan adopted by most 

 botanists until very recently, of giving as the authority for the 

 binomial name the author who placed [the species] in its new and 

 apparently more correct genus." 



Although, as every one knows, Babington was, even before the 

 publication of the Manual, the recipient of communications from 

 "botanical friends and correspondents almost too numerous to 

 mention," it may be of interest to cite the names of those whom he 

 singles out for special mention. In the first edition he names 

 J. H. Balfour, D. Moore, W. Borrer, E. Forster, J. E. Henslow, 

 and W. A. Leighton, and most of these are mentioned in the second 

 edition. Thereafter none are named ; had any been mentioned, it 

 would assuredly have been Mr. Newbould, whose devotion to the 

 Manual and its author amounted almost to a cultus, and whose 

 excitement during the preparation and on the publication of a new 

 edition was almost ludicrous in its intensity. 



It seemed desirable to say what had to be said about the Manual 

 in a connected form ; but we must now return to the period when the 



• Journ. Bot. 1867, 184; 1874, 215; 1881, 280. 



