399 



the case known to scientific readers ; but in justice to myself I must 

 observe that the notice for which I am responsible did not consist of 

 mere assertions, but that Dr. Drummond's arguments were directly 

 assailed, and the various points illustrated by such quotations from 

 botanists of eminence as were judged necessary ; and I confidently 

 challenge for myself the credit, small though it be, of having strictly 

 adhered to the question at issue, kept entirely within the fair bounds 

 of literary controversy, carefully avoided personalities, and religiously 

 abstained from the slightest inuendo or insinuation of disingenuous 

 conduct on Dr. Drummond's part. Whilst in the fullest manner dis- 

 avowing all intention of hurting that gentleman's feelings, I must still 

 maintain that a writer cannot complain of legitimate censure when he 

 lays himself open to the charge of having displayed, in the discussion 

 of a subject chosen by himself, great ignorance, or, at any rate, exces- 

 sive carelessness ; and I can only state that I am prepared to defend 

 every charge or epithet I may have brought forward or used in the 

 expression of that censure. I cannot suppose that Dr. Drummond 

 can, after this explanation, extend his imputations on the candour, 

 moral courage, and manly spirit of the ' Phytologist ' reviewer to, 



Sir, 

 Your obedient Servant, 



H. F. Hance, 

 The author of the critique in the 



* Westminster Review.* 

 To the Editor of the ' Phytologist.' 



London, November 19, 1851. 



Notices of Botanical Periodicals, 8fc. 



Hooker'' s ' Journal "of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany^ No. 3(?, 



December J 1851. 



The papers in this number are intituled : — 



' Catalogue of Cryptogamic Plants collected by Professor W. Jame- 

 son in the Vicinity of Quito ; by William Mitten.' 



' Sketch of the Vegetation of the Isthmus of Panama ; by M. Bert- 

 hold Seeraann, Naturalist of H.M.S. Herald.' 



