1861.] REVIEWS. 91 



cipal subject the Flora of MoncriefFe and Kinuoull hills, or rather, 

 a list of some of their rare, and probably also their common pro- 

 ductions, a list, we are respectfully informed, " for which we are 

 indebted to the kindness of Dr. Balfour, . . . the distinguished 

 Professor of Botany in the University of Edinburgh. ^^ 



The learned Professor is equally and honourably distinguished 

 by his love of the science, and by his desire to extend its know- 

 ledge among his pupils. His class expeditions have been fre- 

 quently noticed in our pages. 



We hope, for the credit of the leader, and especially for the 

 reputation of the University of which he is a popular and ener- 

 getic member, that the account of this class excursion, if not a 

 caricature, is at the very least a gross exaggeration. If it be not, 

 all confidence in the ancient saying must be shaken, " Ingenuas 

 didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores, nee sinit esse feros.^^ The 

 writer of this notice will not register in the pages of the ' Phy to- 

 logist' the doings of Scotia's ingenious youth, the hope of the 

 nation, the alumni of Edina's celebrated seat of science and 

 learning. There is enough, and more than enough, in the ' Mur- 

 ray' of September, 1860, if true, to show that Scotland, proud 

 of the scientific reputation of her children, has no reason to boast 

 of their progress in the knowledge and observance of the graces, 

 amenities, and civilities usually expected among the more polished 

 classes of society. 



Justice to ourselves demands a few strictures on the list itself, 

 which forms the fundamental portion of the article in the ' Mur- 

 ray.' The tumultuary proceedings of the " Philistines," as they 

 are not very decorously called, are but like the garnishing to the 

 substantial viands served up for the delectation of eccentric taste, 

 not for the enlargement of our knowledge. 



All the plants recorded by the learned Doctor have already 

 been published in the ' Phytologist,' some of them more than 

 once. The writer of the list and the editor of the ' Murray ' 

 could hardly be ignorant of this fact ; they ought liot to be so ; 

 and in common courtesy they might have stated in their notice 

 of their second-hand discoveries, that if they were not indebted 

 to our pages for the information which they circulate as oinginal, 

 they might have noticed the other labourers who had preceded 

 them, not as gleaners, but as original workers, in the same field. 

 Literary etiquette, as well as common honesty, would have re- 



