846 



It may be thought that we use rather eulogistic terms, in thus 

 strongly commending a work which, as is admitted, relates only to 

 one of the more humble depai'tments of botanical science. We be- 

 lieve, however, while it certainly makes only small demand on the 

 loftier powers of mind, that the good execution of such a work does 

 truly require a considerable share of intellectual talent, although such 

 talent may be of a partial or specific kind. Moreover, descriptive 

 botany is a most essential department of the science ; and some of the 

 highest investigations towards which the attention of botanists can be 

 directed will be found to depend pretty much upon the ability and 

 accuracy of those who devote themselves to technical description. 

 We believe that exactness in description and nomenclature will con- 

 tinue to become of increasing importance to the general progress of 

 the science. 



Turn we now to the other side of the picture, and say a few words 

 on some points where we must think the author fairly liable to a share 

 of censure. Here and there, through the volume, we detect such de- 

 cided evidences of partiality as to leave us no means for avoiding a 

 conclusion that the author adopts or rejects genera and species, names 

 and characters, less on their own merits and soundness, than out of 

 personal feelings towards (whether for or against) the botanists by 

 whom they may have been suggested or ascertained. For instance, 

 it looks not well to find an untenable species retained, as if it were 

 something real in nature, when it happens to have for its authority 

 the name of a botanist influential by his social position, and capable 

 of conferring favours ; while, on the other hand, a not less tenable 

 species is rejected, which happens to have been proposed by some 

 less influential person, or by a botanist who is no longer among the 

 living. Neither does it look well to find a marked abstinence from re- 

 ferences to writings which might show himself to have been formerly 

 in error, or which might prove advantageous to some independent in- 

 stitution or individual botanist who is no favourite with the author of 

 the Manual. And when this sort of personal partiality or prejudice 

 is carried so far that error, shown to be such on suflicient evidence, is 

 repeated in preference to the substitution of fact or truth, it can hardly 

 fail to excite a distrust of the author's scientific fidelity, and must un- 

 avoidably weaken the reliance which otherwise might have been given 

 to the Manual, as a faithful record of the realities of nature. Not a 

 worse, but a more direct and unmistakeable breach of justice is com- 

 mitted in misappropriating to himself any little discovery or correc- 

 tion of nomenclature, in which he must well know that he had no 

 share. This want of sufficient impartiality, in matters that should be 



