314 



lo speak for himself, in order that there may be no just ground for a 

 reiteration of the charge of wilful misrepresentation : should we fall 

 into error at any time it will be from a misapprehension of our author's 

 meaning, never from a desire to pervert his intentions. 



The author of the ' Observations,' in the letter to which we have 

 referred (Phytol. iv. 211), addressing the editor, says, "the book con- 

 tains nothing to warrant you or any one else in insinuating that it was 

 written as if the author were overwhelmed with grief;" and that 

 " 1 used no ' dolorous terms^ made no ' lachrymose observations,'' and 

 uttered no ' lamentations^ as is represented in the ' Phytologist.' " 

 Well, perhaps not; peradventure, in the second page of his book, 

 where he is speaking of the devotion to botany formerly exhibited by 

 the ladies, some one else wrote, " There is, however, / am sorry to 

 say, little of this now ; the enthusiasm is gone, and the culture of the 

 science among the female sex has become, / am much afraid, almost 

 extinct." Then again, in the third page, where the superiority of the 

 Linngean system for leading to a knowledge of plants is refen-ed to, 

 some one has written, " All former methods sank into insignificance 

 before it ; and although it is the fashion of the present day to vilify, 

 ridicule, and speak of it as useless, I greatly fear that, until it again 

 comes into favour, and obtains the countenance it deserves, botany, 

 as a popular pursuit, will become as dead a letter as it was before the 

 system of Linnaeus engaged the attention, and struck with admiration 

 and delight almost all the naturalists of Europe." Again, in page 7, 

 after a quotation from a review of Steele's ' Hand-book of Field Bo- 

 tany ' in the ' Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science ' for Fe- 

 bruary, 1848, the writer of which controverts Dr. Steele's opinion 

 " that botany is becoming popular among the masses, — that it is a 

 favorite study of the million," and states that at Dublin botany was 

 much more popular forty or even eighty years ago than it is now — 

 after this we find inserted the remark that " what is here said of Dub- 

 lin may, / am afraid, be applied to most other par.ts." The expres- 

 sions in Italics (which Italics, by the way, are our own) are not per- 

 haps either " dolorous " or " lachrymose," in the strict sense of the 

 words — they only mean, according to the Dictionaries, "to be grieved," 

 " to live in terror," and " to be struck with fear ; terrified ; fearful." 

 And once more, at p. 77, we find the inquiry — " Is it not deplorable 

 that such vile names [as those coined by Gray in his Arrangement] 

 should be introduced into the beautiful science of botany ?" But 

 then, deplorable means nothing more than "lamentable; dismal; sad; 

 calamitous ; miserable ; hopeless ! " Of all these meanings we give 



