CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN BOTANY 9 
W. L. Jepson as a Botanical Editor. 
In what the young folks of today would call the wild and 
woolly past it was axiomatic editorially to be truthful, fair and in- 
teresting: now the only requirement seems to be ‘‘make a story‘‘, 
The result is that scientists shun reporters as they would snakes 
for the average reporter shows the intelligence of a twe ve-year- 
old child. i 
a - 
er botanists. But I never noticed exhibitions of actual viciousness 
till my attention was called (July 4th. 1932) to Madrona vol.1 p. 
218 July 1929, in which he publishes a letter of Parry’s written in 
The facts in that case published in an April number of 1882 
of the San Diego Union, and in my Cont. 17, areas follows: 
I accidentally met Parry at the hotel, and he told me that Pringle 
widow Orcutt, and her son Charley as cook and driver. Charley 
soon became offensively insubordinate and had to'be called to time. 
On our return from Ensenada we reached Tiajuana Saturday 
night. I had never traveled nor collected on Sunday, and so did 
not want to go in the next day, but for reason of ‘‘urgent business‘* 
Parry could not wait, but promised if I would let himand Charley 
go in he would send Charley right back with the team. I did not 
discover, for some time, what Parry’s hurry was about till the Bo- 
tanical Gazette came ont with my new rose with a new name by 
the ‘thigh minded‘‘ botanical thief Parry. 
So they left Sunday morning, but Charley did not return til! 
Wednesday, and had his older brother, a man about my own age, 
with him. Their conduct, on their arrival, indicated no good to 
ue and so [ refurbished an old pistol that I-carried,:and strapped 
it on me and went out and hitched upthe team. At this junc- 
ture the brother sprang to the bits of the horses .and told me I 
could not drive the team, I exhibited the pistol and told him to 
get, and he got in a hurry, for he would have been shot if he had 
n Mexico was lawless then and is not much’ better now. 
Below is Jepson’s alleged account of the same incident, over 
his signature. ‘There was nothing in Parry’s letter about the inci- 
* poy 
Se Se W. H ntchm Jon feripsct 
