302 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1847 



To Professor J. H. Balfour, M.D. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, Aug. 6, 1847. 



Dear Balfour, — I have this day sent to the care of Pamplin the 

 most complete set of my Icelandic plants, next to my own, that I 

 could make up, and inform you of it, in order that it may be looked 

 after. I have sent the second best set to Hooker. I shall be glad 

 to have a few lines from you, giving an account of your success in 

 the Highlands. Would it not be a good plan to send a short account 

 of your trip to the " Gardeners' Chronicle," as the " Phytologist " is 

 out of the question ? I hope to send a packet of British plants, in 

 the autumn, for the Society, but have not now time to look them 

 out. I go with Newbould into North Wales on Monday next, and 

 intend to examine some parts of the mountains, which are not much 

 frequented, carefully. Not that I expect to find much, but as I 

 shall especially attend to Rvhi, Grasses, Carices, and Hieracia, I may 

 by chance hit upon something. I shall probably take Hereford- 

 shire on my return, and spend a short time there with Lingwood. 

 You will have seen what a terrific election we have had. The return 

 of a Whig was impossible, and so we did our best, and returned a 

 Peelite as the next thing. A letter directed to me here will be sure 

 to find me sooner or later. — Believe me, yours very truly, Charles 

 C. Babington. 



To the same. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, Oct. 4, 1847. 



Dear Balfour, — I see by a letter of yours that Evans intends 

 publishing a fasciculus of Hieracia. He had better take care what 

 he is about with them, and be sure that he publishes t3rpical 

 specimens. Bloxam has rather done harm than good by his 

 published set of abnormal Ruhi. I am very greatly obliged to 

 you for the set of specimens which you tell me has been sent by 

 N. B. Ward to London. I shall write to him about them soon, and 

 you shall have my ideas upon any that seem to require notice as 

 soon after I obtain them as I can, and also return you such as you 

 desire. As to Oken's book* I have but little to say, as I have read 

 very little of it. I do not pretend to understand it yet, although I 

 think I have some idea of his argument. Many expressions in it 

 are so worded as to lead to a bad interpretation of them, but in my 

 opinion none such is intended by the author. More care ought 

 certainly to have been taken to avoid all ambiguous expressions in 

 the translation. I think that very few of the members will read 

 many pages of it. Many doubts were expressed at Council Meetings 

 as to its being an advisable publication. I was, and am, one of the 

 doubters. I am not prepared to go so far as you say that Lankester 

 does, and declare that there is "nothing wrong" in Oken's book, 



* " Elements of Physiophilosophy, by Lorenz Oken, M.D., Ray Soc, 1847." 



