366 



together such plants as are ' moYQ like to each other than to anythhig 

 else,' is certainly somewhat of the wonderful." — P. 90. A number of 

 these plants, however, did happen to be arranged together, and this 

 has been made the most of, to prove that I am wholly ignorant of the 

 writings of Linnaeus. Well, I have got a good whipping, and vrill 

 explain my meaning more clearly the next time. 



There is another matter, Mr. Editor, of a much more serious nature, 

 and which I greatly regret to have happened; that is, the having 

 quoted a passage of DeCaudolle as if it had been Dr. Lindley's, from 

 ray having overlooked that it was printed with inverted commas. I 

 had not the slightest suspicion of such a thing having occurred, till I 

 saw it referred to by your correspondent ; but I indignantly repel his 

 insinuation that it was done designedly ; I would not, for any consi- 

 deration on earth, have recourse to so low and degrading a piece of 

 trickery. 



The long communication in the ' Phytologist,' is a modified edition 

 of the critique which appeared in the ' Westminster Review ' for 

 October, 1850, in which I am represented (after being called the 

 "Resurrectionist" of Linnaeus, or appearing in that character) as 

 uttering " the most mournful lamentations," with other words of simi- 

 lar import. I was again brought forward by this reviewer in the 

 pages of the ' Phytologist,' under the same grievous aspect, to form 

 an agreeable preamble to his remarks on the last edition of the ' Bri- 

 tish Flora,' and in consequence I wrote a short letter, stating to your 

 readers that such terms as " dolorous,''' Sec, were quite unjustifiable, 

 as applied to my little work. 



The reviewer again comes forward with his long communication ; 

 and if he had possessed a grain of moral courage, or of manly spirit, 

 he would, at least, have expressed some regret at having held me up 

 to public ridicule through the medium of his own falsehoods. In 

 place of that, he has had recourse to a petty subterfuge, but which is 

 too transparent not to be seen through by the most inattentive reader. 

 Me quotes, from different parts of the ' Observations,' the words sorry, 

 fear, and afraid, which he puts in Italics, and says that " they are not 

 perhaps either ' dolorous' or ' lachrymose,' in the strict sense of the 

 words." Why, then, did he use these terms ? Why did he fraudu- 

 lently employ them for the pm-pose of turning the book and its author 

 into contempt, for there could be no other possible object in view 

 than that ? But referring to the words he puts in Italics, " they only 

 mean, according to the dictionaries, ' to be grieved,' ' to live in ter- 

 ror,' and ' to be struck with fear ; terrified ; fearful.' " Now, even 



