Konal Cn.^titution of (ffircat iSrifaht, 



WEEKLY EVENING MEETING, 



Friday, Feb. 18, 1881. 

 Thomas Boycott, Esq. M.D. F.L.S. Vice-President, in the Chair. 



Sib John Lubbock, Bart. M.F. D.C.L. LL.D. F.R.S. M.B.I. 



Pres. Linn. Soo. 



Fruits and Seeds. 



Our eloquent countryman, Mr. Ruskin, commences his work on 

 Flowers by a somewhat severe criticism of his predecessors. IIo 

 reproduces a page from a valuable but somewhat antiquated work, 

 * Curtis' Magazine,' which he alleges to be " characteristic of botanical 

 books and botanical science, not to say all science," and complains 

 bitterly that it is a string of names and technical terms. No doubt 

 that unfortunate page does contain a list of synonyms, and long 

 words. But in order to identify a plant you must have synonyms 

 and technical terms, just as to learn a language you must have a dic- 

 tionary. To complain of this would be to resemble the man who 

 said that Johnson's Dictionary was dry and disjointed reading. But 

 no one would attempt to judge the literature of a country by reading 

 a dictionary. Neither can we estimate the interest of a science by 

 reading technical descriptions. On the other hand, it is impossible 

 to give a satisfactory description of an animal or plant except in 

 strict technical language. 



Let me reproduce a description which Mr. Ruskin has given 

 of the Swallow, and which, indeed, he says in his lecture on tliat 

 bird, is the only true description that could be given. His lecture 

 w^as delivered before the University of Oxford, and is, I need hardly 

 say, most interesting. Now, how does he describe a swallow ? You 

 can, he says, " only rightly describe the bird by the resemblances 

 and images of what it seems to have changed from, then adding tho 

 fantastic and beautiful contrast of the unimaginable change. It is an 

 owl that has been trained by the Graces. It is a bat that loves tho 

 morning light. It is the aerial reflection of a d()l2)hin. It is tho 

 tender domestication of a trout." That is, no doubt, very i^oetical, 

 but it would be absolutely useless as a scientific description, and, I 

 must confess, would never have suggested, to me at least, the idea 

 of a swallow. 



But though technical terms are very necessary in science, I shall 

 endeavour, as far as I can, to avoid them here. As, however, it will 

 be imj)ossible for me to do so altogether, I will do my best at the 

 commencement to make them as clear as possible, and I must 

 therefore ask those who have already looked into the subject, to 

 Vol. IX. (No. 74.) 2 t 



