381 



rious circumstance to account for. But it so happens that the state- 

 ments in Mr. Babington's paper are quite erroneous. Some time 

 back Mr. Andrews directed my attention to the true state of the case, 

 and obligingly supplied me with Irish plants, which afforded the most 

 unequivocal contradiction of Mr. Babington's (supposed) fact. Spe- 

 cimens in proof of this were laid before a meeting of the Botanical 

 Society of London, in June, 1844; and the circumstance was expli- 

 citly recorded in the ' Phytologist ' of the next month, July, 1844. 

 Moreover, I feel assured that Mr. Babington would not deny his own 

 knowledge (or belief) of his supposition being untenable. Notwith- 

 standing this, however, the untenable supposition is republished, a 

 year after, as though it were still an unquestioned fact ! 



This is not the only example of its kind which could be adduced 

 from the * Transactions ' before me. But one example will suffice 

 whereon to found two questions, which may be answered by the " com- 

 mittee," or for them by the readers of the ' Phytologist.' 1st. — Is it 

 conducive to the progress of science, that a statement should be re- 

 published, without correction or qualification, after it had been proved 

 totally inaccurate ? 2ndly. — Is it justice to that botanist, by whose 

 superior knowledge and more careful observation of Irish plants the 

 mistake was corrected, that readers of a work published in 1845 

 should be thus kept in ignorance of the correction made in 1844 ? 



It appears to my judgment, that a postscript was necessary to the 

 post-dated republication, in order to contradict or qualify any state- 

 ments therein, which, at the date of republication were known to be 

 inaccurate. To republish statements, known to be erroneous, seems 

 very little better than wilful mis-statement: there is suppression of 

 truth, with statements that are not true. 



The case selected is a decided one. Mr. Babington's knowledge of 

 British plants, and his general accuracy of observation, are unques- 

 tionable. And yet even this eminent botanist's own papers render 

 the republished "Transactions" thus liable to objection. Much 

 more so may they become, in the case of other contributors less con- 

 versant with British Botany. In prosecuting scientific inquiries, any 

 of us may commit occasional mistakes, and I have committed too 

 many errors myself, to find fault with other parties simply on account 

 of a mistake. I beg therefore, to repeat, that no censure is here di- 

 rected towards the error itself, but simply against the republication 

 of statements ivithout correction, although known to be erroneous. 



The preceding instance shows one bad effect which can hardly fail 

 to result from the peculiar mode of publication adopted by the Cora- 

 VOL. II. 3 A 



