1861.] ADDRESS OF THE EDITOR. 15 



consent suffered to appear anonymously, unless they happen to 

 be authors by profession. Such a liberty as that of publishing 

 their names, would be resented by their fathers, husbands, bro- 

 thers, and by a host of male friends, admirers, etc. Would any 

 man be so fool-hardy as to risk the fate of Pentheus by publish- 

 ing a list of his fair correspondents ? 



There are a few and only a few of the sterner — I will not call 

 them the braver — sex, who stipulate that their names shall not 

 be printed, although their communications are of bond fide cha- 

 racter. These and all others who prefer it have the full sanc- 

 tion of the Editor to withhold or publish their names as they 

 please. To save their feelings from hostile criticism, or their lives 

 from subsequent trouble, or their houses from intrusion, they 

 publish anonymously. Some have one object, some another, and 

 some probably have no object at all, but whim, and the plea- 

 sure of mystifying quidnuncs (excuse the solecism) or curiosos 

 impertinentes. 



In all these cases the Editor is responsible for the truth of the 

 facts entered anonymously, or under fictitious names; but he 

 knows the correspondents, and the contributions are sent under 

 the conditions of secrecy. They have confidence in the Editor 

 that he will not bewray them, and he has confidence in them that 

 they will not impose upon him nor send him mare^s-nests, and 

 thereby make themselves and him ridiculous. It is not expected 

 that any editor, supposing him to have got much experience by 

 living long, seeing much, and thinking more, can be aware of all 

 the changes which are daily taking place in the relations of 

 plants under many circumstances, and in places far distant 

 from his residence and usual haunts. He therefore necessarily 

 must rely upon the testimony of others who have seen what he 

 cannot see, although well acquainted with the botany of the 

 places where he has resided at various times. He does not, 

 while living in London and studying the history and character 

 of plants in books and in herbaria, profess to know what grows 

 in Devon, Wales, and Scotland better than those botanists who 

 are resident in these parts of the kingdom. The Editor of the 

 ' Phytologist ' is not gifted with the second sight ; he cannot, 

 while botanizing in Surrey, see plants growing on the hills of 

 Kinnoul and Moncrieffe. 



No facts are printed, as such, in the ' Phytologist ' on anony- 



