545 



ness of the forms and serratures of the leaves of the Irish Saxifrages, 

 and their general identity, in these respects, with Pyrenean specimens. 



Afterwards comes a dissertation upon the accuracy, &c. of Babing- 

 ton ; followed by " C." 's opinion, that there is a scientific, if not a 

 moral, obligation for the former to correct his " error." 



Now surely there is nothing " odd " in a reader of the ' Phytologist' 

 supposing that this " error " alludes to the two points of Andrews' 

 sentence, as " C." does not state that he means it only to apply to 

 that part which he commented upon. 



The quotation from Andrews certainly refers to specific distinctness 

 as part of that (error) which Babington had not found time to correct. 

 Whether " C." has mutilated the original, or selected passages which 

 convey an incomplete view of Andrews' sentiments, is not for me to 

 say ; but the words given in the quotation do connect (unintentionally, 

 no doubt) the error with specific distinctness ; and "C."'s "error" 

 evidently alludes to that inferred by Andrews. 



Is it strange, then, and inexplicable, that I should suspect " C." 

 of coinciding with Andrews on the point of specific distinctness ? 



It must be remembered that Babington, in his ' Manual,' gives 

 Saxifraga umbrosa, elegans, hirsuta, and Geum as distinct species, and 

 that Andrews (according to the quotation) differs with him in opinion 

 on this subject. 



I make no doubt whatever of having misunderstood what "C." in- 

 forms us now that he intended to convey, but which he certainly did 

 not convey clearly. 



From the last number of the ' Phytologist ' it appears that " the 

 strictly scientific point of the case may now be considered as settled;" 

 if so, may I ask " C." and others to pass over the "objectionable" 

 parts of my last paper (the title and first paragraph), and consider the 

 subject of hybridization carefully, in connexion with the Irish Saxi- 

 frages ? — the question of their specific distinctness (or the contrary) 

 assuredly is not settled satisfactorily. 



In conclusion, I would recommend, that if " C." (or any writer) 

 gives another paper on this or any other subject, he bring out his 

 name openly, as my previous " strictures," " false witness," &c. would 

 probably have been spared had he done so before. In a journal like 

 the 'Phytologist' no one ought to suppress his name, to make re- 

 marks in secret which he would shrink from making openly. A mere 

 alphabet letter like " C." or W. ought not to expect that politeness 

 which is due to an honest name. J. Backhouse, Junr. 



York, May 5, 1849. 



Vol. hi. 4 b 



