145 



Mimulus luteus, and on the pear-tree to be excluded altogether, when 

 such plants as Sisyrinchium anceps are let in." Now, if any exact 

 meaning is to be gathered from that vague style of expression, it must 

 involve an assertion, on the part of Mr. Sidebotham, that the pear- 

 tree is excluded from the list of British plants, in the second edition 

 of the Catalogue referred to. But any botanist who will take the 

 trouble of looking for the name of the tree in the Catalogue, may see 

 " Pyrus communis," in its proper place, no. 362, printed in the 

 ordinary type used for other undisputed natives. Thus supported by 

 published evidence, accessible to any botanist, I am justified in say- 

 ing that Mr. Sidebotham has made out a seeming case against the 

 ' London Catalogue ' by a glaring mis-statement of fact. 



Were I to put down my pen here, it would leave Mr. S. under a 

 charge very like that of deliberate falsehood. But I will not do so, 

 because I think an explanation may be suggested, which will reduce 

 the mis-statement into another example of that imperfect knowledge 

 of British Botany, which his writings have usually betrayed, and so 

 place it against him as an instance of intellectual rather than moral 

 deficiency. In the list of ' Excluded Species,' appended to the ' Lon- 

 don Catalogue,' is the name of the service-tree, " Pyrus domestica," 

 there placed with the sign of imperfect naturalization, because only 

 a solitary tree of that species is known to be apparently wild in this 

 country. Mr. Sidebotham may possibly have seen the name of Pyrus 

 domestica among the excluded species, — may have supposed it to be 

 the botanical name of the pear-tree, — and may have neglected to look 

 for the latter in its proper place in the general list. It is true that 

 such an explanation implies inadequate knowledge and hasty asser- 

 tion ; but I would rather refer a mis-statement to intellectual deficien- 

 cy than to moral defect. 



Now, it may signify little to myself or others, whether the mis-state- 

 ment was an intentional falsehood, — whether it was a reckless asser- 

 tion made without care of its truth or falsity, — or only a simple 

 blunder through ignorance of the difference between the pear and 

 service-trees. Whichever of these explanations be received, it will 

 leave Mr. Sidebotham in a position not likely to give weight to his 

 opinions on the ' London Catalogue,' nor to recommend him as a trust- 

 worthy botanical critic. He will show greater prudence or wisdom 

 in future by abstaining from strictures upon others until he can make 

 them from the vantage ground of knowledge. 



Thames Ditton, May 7, 1848. II. C. WATSON. 



