583 



dents of medicine, by the non-medical professors of botany. In- 

 deed, we should conceive that Balfour's 'Manual of Botany,' with 

 Babington's ' Manual of British Botany,' for the sake of a little prac- 

 tice in discriminating genera and species, would together constitute 

 almost a sufficient botanical library for those students of medicine, 

 and these are the great majority, who seek for a general outline of the 

 subject only, and who prudently avoid trespassing too largely on their 

 professional time, by attempting to follow up botany as a particular 

 pursuit, either during their studies, or in after life when engaged in 

 the absorbing duties of professional practice. From such works as 

 the Manual now before us, a pretty ample knowledge of botanical 

 doctrines and principles may be acquired without much interference 

 with the more strictly professional branches of medical science ; and 

 perhaps, too, with advantages sufficient to compensate for that degree 

 of interference which must inevitably occur from giving up any por- 

 tion of time and attention to the learning of a subject which is quite 

 of secondary importance in professional education, and of no impor- 

 tance in professional practice. We write not in ignorance or unad- 

 visedly, in saying that we should carefully avoid employing any phy- 

 sician, in his professional capacity, who was very eminent as a 

 botanist. And yet we do not the less believe and maintain that aca- 

 demical chairs of Botany ought always to be filled by individuals who 

 have been educated to medicine. Tt is not necessary that a teacher 

 of botany should be one who is advancing the science by original re- 

 search and discovery, or by adding to accumulated stores of knowledge 

 on the subject; but it is quite necessary that he should know well 

 what has been done and ascertained by others ; and, to our thinking, 

 it is so desirable as to be almost a necessity, that he should have been 

 brought up as a medical man, whether actually in practice or not so. 

 It will not be understood from our preceding and very willing tes- 

 timony to the value of the 'Manual of Botany,' in its totality as a 

 new work, that we do not find some small faults of detail in its pages. 

 In some instances, we observe the earlier and therefore less perfect 

 views given, instead of the later and more matured views of the same 

 author on the same subject. For example, in quoting from Hewett 

 Watson, on the subject of types in botanical distribution, the author 

 of the Manual should not have copied them from the publication of 

 1835 (Remarks &c.) in preference to the later dated one of 1847 

 ('Cybele Britannica'), particularly with the use of the present tense, 

 which implies that the arrangement now in use by this writer, is still 

 the same as that of 1835. Some of the errors of detail are quite curious, 



