Ixxii CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. 



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 author 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 altera- 

 tions 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 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 first edition appeared. Before Babington had any official con- 

 nection with the University, his influence was apparent in many 

 directions. He took an important rather than a prominent part — 

 for he was always of a retiring disposition — in numerous projects 

 which space will not allow us to enumerate here, and was generally 

 helpful. A resident of more than forty years testifies that he was 

 then "the central figure among those in Cambridge who took delight 

 in Natural History : and his simple character and keen interest in 

 nature were very attractive to younger men who had similar likings. 

 He certainly did more, in my time, than any one else to promote the 

 study of Natural Science in the University." As an archaeologist 

 he took a high position ; he published papers on " Ancient Cam- 

 bridgeshire " and the history of the chapel of his college. 



In 1836 a society called the Eay Club was formed, to take 



