508 



While I thus express ray own individual opinion, and, in so doing, 

 adopt the very words of the Phytologist's correspondent " C", that 

 there was "a scientific, if not a moral, obligation 1 ' on Mr. Babington 

 to have corrected the untrue statement, I am of course quite ready to 

 admit the right of Mr. Babington, and of any other botanist, to hold 

 a dissentient opinion, to express it, and to act upon it, if he so think 

 fit. But ] do not covet the views of science, or the sense of truth 

 and right, enjoyed by any man who feels himself not called upon to 

 correct grave errors which he has thrown into circulation, where there 

 is strong probability that other persons may be misled by them. I 

 call the error a grave one in the case before us, because of its im- 

 portant bearings upon botanical geography. 



I cannot well guess what may be the opinion of readers of the 

 ' Phytologist,' on the scientific obligation above alluded to. It 

 has, however, been the recognized practice in the ' Phytologist,' to 

 allow full freedom in the refutation of any, even very trifling, errors 

 which have appeared in its pages, whether editorial or otherwise. 

 And this, I believe, will always be the practice and the wish of all 

 sincere men, lovers of scientific truth. 



But I can guess, with a confidence approximating to positive cer- 

 tainty, that if the question were laid before any body of men habitually 

 devoting their thoughts to mental or ethical science, that their views 

 w T ould coincide with mine, on the point of the suggested obligation ; 

 just as Mr. Babington could guess, with the utmost confidence, that a 

 body of botanists would join with him in pronouncing cereals to be 

 grasses, although a non-botanical farmer would rather pronounce a 

 Trifolium or a Medicago to be grass. 



Mr. Babington stated in the 'Phytologist' for this month (Phytol. 

 iii. 474) that he knows nothing concerning the paper sent to be in- 

 serted in the Annals. He and I evidently must think and feel very 

 differently. I should have made it my duty and desire to know some- 

 thing about a paper which refuted, by facts, any considerable error 

 that had been sent into public circulation by myself. 



I intrude in the matter at issue, because Mr. Andrews kindly com- 

 municated to me the results of his investigations and experiments, as 

 they were obtained, and explained the circumstances of the case ; and 

 " C."'s acquaintance with the affair has been derived from mine. 



Hewett C. Watson. 

 Thames Ditton, April 3, 1849. 



