507 



to be simply an instance of too hasty generalisation on the part of 

 that botanist, — accurate so far as it went, no doubt; but going only 

 just far enough to diffuse error, instead of establishing truth. 



While the inquiry might be considered still pending and unsettled 

 (1845), Mr. Andrews made a communication on the subject, through 

 Professor Allman, to the British Association, assembled at Cambridge, 

 in which he stated the results of his own investigations, as views 

 " altogether in opposition to those advanced by Mr. Babington, and 

 published by him in the ' Annals of Natural History.' " I am told 

 that Mr. Babington was present, but made no remark at the time, 

 when the paper from Mr. Andrews was laid before the sectional 

 meeting. And I am also informed, that a copy of Mr. Andrews' 

 paper was given by Professor Allman to Mr. Taylor, for publication 

 in the Annals. But the said paper never appeared in that periodical. 



Such are the facts of the case, if I understand them rightly. And 

 in forming a judgment on the matter, it is proper to keep in mind that 

 Mr. Babington had circulated a grave error through the pages of the 

 Annals, and had deliberately re-affirmed and extended the original 

 error by a second paper on the subject. Also, be it remembered, that 

 the control or management of the botanical portion of the Annals is 

 undisguisedly placed in the hands of Mr. Babington, whose name ap- 

 pears on the cover of the periodical, and his initials appended to many 

 of the articles. 



Now, writing as an individual, and expressing an individual 

 opinion, I will say, it appears perfectly clear to my judgment, that 

 Mr. Babington ought to have corrected his erroneous statement in 

 the pages of the same periodical through which he had given circula- 

 tion thereto; — or, failing his own inclination to do this, that Mr. An- 

 drews ought to have been allowed to make his counter statement in 

 the pages of that periodical. So far as the Annals went, Mr. Babing- 

 ton's error continued to stand as an unrefuted and scientific truth, 

 eminently calculated to mislead any botanist who might see and rely 

 upon it. The partial antidote of a counter statement having appeared 

 in the ' Phytologist,' in a Report of a meeting of the Botanical So- 

 ciety of London, or incidentally in a paper on a different subject, 

 could not release an individual from the obligation (if such an obliga- 

 tion exist) of correcting his own published statements, ascertained to 

 be untrue in reality. The antidote, moreover, was put forth by ano- 

 ther party, and in another periodical, because Mr. Babington did not 

 make the correction himself. 



