Andrews's " botanists' repository " 243 



himself " much better satisfied with the manner in which this 

 work has been conducted of late than we formerly were : an 

 alteration we are inclined to attribute to the frequent intercourse 

 the author must necessarily have with Mr. Lambert, from whose 

 communications a large proportion of the figures have lately been 

 drawn." A year later (September, 1810) a similar compliment to 

 the text is accompanied by a severe attack upon Andrews's plates : 

 " The letterpress continues to be much better conducted than it 

 formerly was : the assistance of a good botanist is very evident ; 

 and as we observe that a large portion of the specimens are 

 supplied from Boy ton, our former surmise that this improvement 

 may be attributed to the author's connexions with A. B. Lambert 

 Esq. is strengthened. We wish we could add that the style of 

 drawing was improved, but the artist continues apparently to 

 make Chinese paper-hangings his great model. If he would 

 endeavour to copy accurately the plant before him, he would not 

 so constantly outstep the modesty of nature. If his pictures were 

 less striking to the vulgar eye, that always delights in gaudy 

 tints, they would be infinitely more prized by those who know 

 how to appreciate the excellencies of the art." Smith, in Eees's 

 Cycloi^oidia (xviii, part 2, Aug. 11, 1811), under Jacksonia, refers 

 to Jackson's then recent death and says : " The improved style of 

 the Botanical [sic] Bepository, for some time past, though far 

 short of what he would have wished, is owing to his care." 

 Sahsbury (in Trans. Hort. Soc. i, 295, 1812), implies his responsi- 

 bihty for the work by indicating its absence in a particular 

 instance ''■ ; and Haworth, who preceded Jackson as editor of the 

 Repository, has a similar implication.! 



It may thus fairly be assumed that Jackson, up to his death, 

 in 1811, exercised a general supervision over the botanical portion 

 of the work, but it is clear that Andrews was also largely respon- 

 sible for its contents ; the Proteacece, for example, are assigned by 

 Salisbury to him. Other contributors of individual descriptions 

 are indicated in the following list, which I have compiled from 

 such incidental references as I have been able to find in contem- 

 porary literature. I have not cited those attributed to Andrews, 

 as he must of course stand as the authority for all the names first 

 published in the Bepository (in accordance with Article 40 of the 

 Vienna Code) as Aiton does for those in the Hortus Ketoensis.l 

 It may be noted, however, that although this attribution is 

 general, contemporary writers sometimes cite the work simply 

 as " Bot. Kep." The accurate Dryander differentiates in his 

 method of citing this and other works ; thus in Ann. Bot. 

 ii, 504-532 he always writes " Andrews's reposit," but " Sims in 

 Bot. Mag.," " Smith in Linn. Soc. transact.," " Smith new HolL," 



* See later, p. 246. 



t Synopsis PI. Succ. 223 (1812). In Jonrn. Bot. I. c. I have referred to the 

 animus displayed by Haworth against Jackson, which may possibly account for 

 his attribution to the former of Verea acutijlora (t. 560) to Kennedy, whose 

 connection with the Repository had ceased five years before. 



X See Journ. Bot. 1912, Suppl. iii, p. 7. 



