Sir J. E. Smith's English Flora. 227 



1 10 ditto; p. 115, 1 19; p. 131, 1.2; p. 135, 1. 10; in all 

 which places that excellent writer is cited as he ought to be 



In the Umbettifera:, the reviewer says that Sir J. E Smith 

 " criticises the labours of Sprengfer and Hoffman, and yet never 

 makes a single reference to their works." Whereas in the 

 list of books quoted in vol. ii., both these writers are indi- 

 cated, at least Sprengrf and Hoffmaww, which are the true 

 names;— Sprengler was a conchologist. See also, with respect 

 to the latter assertion, p. 42 of this 2d vol. line 21; p. 44 1 3 

 from the bottom; p. 45 in two places ; 46 to 52 ; in every pa^e, 



«« «? llt ^°" f 6 ° nCe ° r twice < l UOted; in PP' 54 ' 59 > 62, 65, 

 66 68 71, 72, 77, 84, 87, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97-103, 105, one 

 or both may be found cited, and Sprengel's Prodromus, or 

 Ins Species Umbelhfera, or both, are always mentioned with 

 respect by our learned President, whether agreeing with them 

 in opinion, or not. 



With regard to his quotation of authors in general, his 

 plan seems to be not to burthen the work with the name or 

 page of every author in every country who has mentioned each 

 plant, but to quote such as are useful, and likely to assist an 

 English reader. 



What we have said is enough to expose such a barefaced 

 calumny. The rest of the article is no less false and injurious ■ 

 but it is unnecessary to refute what every person conversant 

 with the subject will see in its true light. The writer abuses 

 Mr . trreville s Flora for being arranged after the Linncean 

 method, which is peculiarly obnoxious to those who can ff et 

 no credit but by attacking it. 



Nothing can be more false than what is said of Sir James in 

 this Review about his copying Ray and Tournefort, as he is 

 undoubtedly the first who arranged Umbellatce by all the parts 

 ol fructification alone. 



We have long seen enough of Reviews to convince us that 

 very little regard is to be paid to their critiques on works of 

 science or research, as the writers employed are either not 

 capable of understanding them, or have some personal in- 

 terest in misrepresenting them. Thus it happens that the 

 very best works of this description which appear from time 

 to time are either not noticed in the Reviews, or are misre- 

 presented and abused. 



ANALYSIS OF PERIODICAL WORKS ON NATURAL HISTORY. 



Curlis's Botanical Magazine. No. 452. 



PL 2M0. Azalea indica, var. /3. plena.- Ornithogalum narboneme, con" 



M-lured by some authors a variety of pyrmaicum, from which however it 



dlflers in many particular,.- lidln ,ylve,tru, the distinction between which 



Ff« and 



