264 



" What are we to say," observes Mr. Watson " about the frivolous 

 attempts at species-maliing among the Rubi and Polygona in vogue 

 at present, as among the Rosse and Menthae in former years ? "* I 

 adduce this sentence, though the last on the record, as rather coming 

 home to myself from having laboured at what Mr. Watson thus by 

 implication condemns, and object entirely to the spirit in which it is 

 written. Why should it be esteemed more frivolous to attempt unra- 

 velling the intricate forms of the Rubi, than to sovir primrose-seeds and 

 make varieties of their produce } If Mr. Watson will really allow 

 thought on the subject, by others as well as by himself, then I should 

 be disposed to say, that not only were the observers of Roses in times 

 past doing good service to Botany, but that the observers and de- 

 scribers of Rubi and Polygona, as well as the experimenters on the 

 permanent charactei's of species in any family, are doing so now.f 

 Mr. Watson's remarks tend to repress observation except in his own 

 way ; but surely knowledge is only to be obtained correctly by unre- 

 stricted observation on all sides. 



But why this objection to " species-making," — or rather the obser- 

 vation of minute differences in plants .'' If this minute attention be 

 not given, do not the greatest mistakes arise ? If, then, an individual 

 plant differing from another in some particular point is not to be noted, 

 why attend to species at all, or attempt to set bounds to them ? Bet- 

 ter at once say with Thomson, as we contemplate the flowery meadow 

 and its grasses, " beyond the power of botanist to number " up their 

 forms. But if Mr. Watson admits the discovery or designation of 

 species to be advantageous, then why decry that attentive examination 

 of them which every tyro in Botany has been taught it is important to 

 attend to ? But here we come to the opprohrium hotanicum — the 

 definition of species so carefully constituted as to form what Mr. Wat- 



* Phytol. ii. p. 219. 



f I wish botanical writers would exercise a little more candour and forbearance as 

 well as due appreciation towards their compeers and fellow-labourers than is usually 

 the case, and not at all events attribute any depreciating motive as influencing their 

 labours — if they can help it. Yet alas ! somebody or other has always to complain on 

 this score. Sir James Smith murmured at Dr. Hooker's making nought of all his ef- 

 forts on the willows, and the latter possibly thinks he may have been slighted in his 

 turn. Dr. Lindley warmly reproached the friends of Sir J. E. Smith with not allow- 

 ing him to participate in the spoils of the Rubi, as he says they " determined to keep 

 the game in their own hands ;" yet he himself with equal injustice denounced the 

 school of Linnaeus as an " incubus upon science," and as leading to no one useful pur- 

 pose. Now Mr. Watson comes to the charge, blaming botanists for " love of appro- 

 bation," or as seeking notoriety, and I, in my turn, grumble at his uiicharitableness ! 



