WALKER-ARNOTT, IN REPLY TO DR. DONKIN. 91 
for the generic name. Had he wished to ascertain the facts 
of the case, he could have applied to me previously, instead 
of receiving his information second-hand from others, whether 
by letters, or by slides which I had not examined or named. In 
my reply to him, at p. 196, I stated my belief that, had he ap- 
plied to me, the paragraph would not have been written: al- 
though he has had ample time since then to obtain from me pri- 
vately full information, he has preferred repeating the mistake. 
He now introduces Dr. Montgomery’s name ; in consequence 
of which I considered it proper to apply to that gentleman 
for an explanation. His answer (6th November) is quite 
satisfactory and explicit: “I am exceedingly sorry that Dr. 
Donkin has made a mistake about A. Ralfsii. In my letter 
many months ago, I gave him distinctly to understand that 
merely ‘ Ralfsi’ had been suggested by you.” It only therefore 
remains for me to state that Dr. Donkin’s attribution of the 
‘generic appellation to me was without foundation ; and now 
to close this very disagreeable discussion into which I have 
been forced against my wishes. 
