340 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1860 



that D. praecox is probably distinct, but have formed no favourable 

 opinion of the others. There is no doubt that Bentham has invented 

 new English names, and put them into the place of old English ones. 

 Perhaps he could not help it in attempting uselessly to form an 

 English binomial nomenclature. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To A. G. More, Esq. 



Cambeidge, April 14, 1860. 



Dear More, — I return the article by this post, and am glad to 

 add that I approve of it. The form of some of the sentences seems 

 to me to admit of improvement by slight changes of arrangement. 

 I have ventured to mark two or three that seem to me to require 

 change the most. If Francis puts it in as it is now terminated, you 

 will have the chance of a "second notice," such as you desire. 

 Watson cannot be otherwise than highly pleased with this notice. 

 You have noticed the good and valuable things, and left quite out 

 of notice the many things that are in bad taste. I know nothing 

 about the arrangements of "Macmillan's Magazine," but suppose 

 that the editor is the authority who determines what shall go in 

 and what not. I should not think that Macmillan takes any part 

 in those things. I certainly did know you in the " Phytologist." 

 Irving is an old-fashioned pedant, and, not knowing much about 

 botany, exhibits his editorial pen in such things as those relating 

 to Moore. I dare say Moore did spell the names wrong, but they 

 ought to have been corrected quietly, and not made a parade of. 

 I fancy that you know that John Sim is a very deserving man, 

 and should be treated with all kindness, and his errors noticed as 

 leniently as possible. So notice his errors, but as you wish to 

 please me, say all that occurs to you in mitigation. I am inclined 

 to think that you had better keep to yourself the fact of being the 

 author of the review, until time shews how Watson takes it. I 

 would ask him as little as possible until it is done. I have not got 

 a loose copy of De Candolle's notice to send to you, but the fact is 

 that it is simply a notice of a generally laudatory character. It 

 does not enter into particulars, and oflers nothing likely to be of 

 use to you. It is in one of the French reviews. I rather doubt 

 the Drahas sent being praecox. What I have came from Baker of 

 Thirsk, who would doubtless send it to you, as they are of his own 

 Gathering. Yours may be hirteUa, but I doubt that also, on account 

 of the petals and the shape of the pods. It seems to me that here 

 we have a case of excess in splitting • of " ultra-radicalism " to be 

 repudiated by the Progressistas. I have never seen any petals of a 

 divergent form in Erophila. They are hardly to be trusted. Where 

 do you get Ficaria divergens 1 I do not now remember the name, 

 and it is not in Boreau. Is it in Schultz ? — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



