509 



Reply by the Reviewer " C." to certain Errors of Representation, on 

 the part of Mr. James Backhouse, Junior, in ' Phytotogist' iii., 

 pp. 475-6. 



In the ' Phytologist ' for April first, as above referred to, an article 

 appeared from the pen of Mr. James Backhouse, which was unfortu- 

 nately rendered most appropriate to the date of publication, by his 

 strictures being founded upon, and adapted to, an utter misconcep- 

 tion of the real question at issue. It is much to be regretted that his 

 odd mistake was not pointed out to Mr. James Backhouse, so that he 

 might have altered the title and first paragraph of his communication, 

 in such manner as to escape the justifiable charge in retort, of bearing- 

 false witness against C. through sheer carelessness and inattention on 

 his own part. Of wilful misrepresentation it would be absurd to ac- 

 cuse Mr. Backhouse. But surely, before publishing anything like 

 strictures upon another party, he was bound to know whether his re- 

 presentations were true or false. 



The title given to his paper, and the representation and comments 

 hazarded in the first paragraph of it, are evidently derived from an 

 utterly erroneous fancy that the question between Mr. Babington and 

 Mr. Andrews, as alluded to by C, had been merely a matter of 

 opinion or inference respecting the specific distinctness of the Ro- 

 bertsonian Saxifrages. But the real point at issue between those 

 botanists, and the point to which C.'s remarks were applicable, was a 

 matter of fact ; namely, the similarity or difference in the serratures 

 of their leaves. The words of C. were so brief and clear as scarcely 

 to allow the shadow of an excuse for mistaking, and consequently 

 misrepresenting them. Here they are : — 

 " The individual writer of this notice can fully confirm the state- 

 ments of Mr. Andrews, in respect to the very variable forms 

 and serratures of the leaves of the Robertsonian Saxifrages 

 of Ireland ; as well as their general identity, in these respects, 

 with examples of the same species from the Pyrenees." 

 Neither in the passage here quoted, nor in any of the after com- 

 ments made by C, in reference to the facts which it involves, was 

 there a single word about " specific distinctness." Nevertheless, Mr. 

 Backhouse has volunteered the publication of strictures upon the 

 comments of C, under the following title given to his paper : — 



"A few Remarks on the 'Proof of C. C. Babington's 'Error' re- 

 specting the specific distinctness of Saxifraga Geum, elegans, 

 hirsuta, &c. &c. By James Backhouse, Jun.," Esq. 



