240 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



detailed later and possibly of others which I have not been able 

 to ascertain, Andrews was responsible for the descriptions both 

 in Latin and English. The former are usually brief, in the style 

 of those in his Geranmms, of which, in the introduction to that 

 work, he distinctly claims authorship. Salisbury, who was 

 accustomed accurately to attribute descriptions in magazines to 

 their actual authors, cites " Andrews " for most of those he quotes 

 from the Be'pository later than the fifth volume, up to which period, 

 as we shall see, they were undertaken by John Kennedy. These 

 descriptions, as well as the various notes defending the conclusions 

 of Linnaeus and the older botanists against those of more recent 

 writers, seem to show that his botanical knowledge was consider- 

 able, but it must be admitted that his contemporaries held it 

 in low esteem. In the Annals of Botany (i. 17 : 1804) Sims refers 

 to the Eepository as " a work where the author struggles, with 

 considerable success, to compensate for the total absence of 

 science," and, referring to the Review of the Plants hitherto 

 figured in the Botanists Bei^ository (published anonymously but 

 known to be by Gawler, afterwards Ker, in 1801), says that " the 

 author's scientific knowledge enables him to correct the mis- 

 nomers " of the Bejjository. This Becensio, as the work w^as also 

 called, includes only vols, i and ii of the Repository ; Gawler, 

 apparently unaware of this, attaches " A " to the descriptions he 

 quotes from it. The writer of the botanical articles in the 

 Monthly Magazine (1807-1812) frequently comments on Andrews's 

 lack of knowledge ; Smith {Exotic Botany, i, 81) is also critical of 

 Andrews, both as to his botany and his want of education : the 

 latter defect is obvious not only in his controversial style, of which 

 Smith cites an example, but in such instances as his implication 

 (Eep. t. 198) that Bauera ruhioides was so named from its resem- 

 l3lance to a Bubus — a statement which Sims (Bot. Mag. t. 715) 

 corrects, with a sarcastic allusion to Andrews's " usual accuracy." 

 The relations between Andrews and Gawler, as well as between 

 Andrews and Sims, were always strained, as is indicated in 

 various passages in Bot. Mag., which Sims then edited, with 

 Gawler as a constant contributor. Thus Sims (Bot. Mag. t. 533) 

 refers to " the carelessness of authors quoting false synonyms," 

 with evident allusion to Andrews, and at the same time pays 

 a high compliment to Gawler : Andrews in his next number 

 (t. 192) makes a long and violent attack upon the Botanical 

 Magazine, in the course of which he refers to Gawler as "a person 

 whose knowledge of living plants, we fear, does not lead him, 

 scarcely, to an acquaintanceship with the difference of face in 

 a plane from a poplar." It should perhaps be remembered that 

 the Botanical Magazine and the Eepository were to some extent 

 rival publications. 



That Andrews was not unconscious of his defects may be 

 inferred from the Introduction to his Coloured Engravings of 

 Heaths (1794-1830), which was in some respects his most impor- 

 tant work. The title-page specifically asserts his responsibility for 

 " the whole," including " the appropriate specific character . . . 



