434 



first. Yet an unfortunate error, either of the pen or press, has marred 

 the good effect of this improvement : the short line, " Subclass 4. 

 Rhizanthea3," required before the name of the order Rhizantheae, is 

 omitted. Through this omission the Rhizanths are made to appear 

 as a third order of the subclass Glumaceae. This blunder is really of a 

 serious character in a manual for students, because likely to cause con- 

 fusion of ideas. But that it is a mere casual blunder is quite clear, since 

 the intentional introduction of Rhizanths into the Glumaceae would 

 imply an amount of ignorance on the part of the editor which is incon- 

 sistent with the greatly-improved position of the order, and which is 

 nowhere displayed throughout the volume. If, therefore, the first 

 edition was worthy the commendation the ' Phytologist ' bestowed on 

 it, the second is still more worthy of that commendation, since it 

 possesses all the merits, but not all the faults, of the first; and this 

 observation, be it understood, is made advisedly, and after referring 

 to the various passages which the soi-disant critics have been pleased 

 to cite as erroneous. Since, therefore, we cordially recommended the 

 first edition of the Manual, and since we adhere to that commendation, 

 as justified by the work itself, so it follows that the second edition, 

 being an improvement on the first, has our cordial commendation also. 

 We believe that a careful comparison of the Manual with Jussieu's 

 'Cours Elementaire' and Lindley's 'Elements' would rob the first of 

 any very strong claim to the standing of an original work ; still Dr. 

 Balfour's share in the work is very creditable, and fully sufficient to 

 warrant its bearing his name. 



Having in these few words disposed of the work itself, we are bound 

 in etiquette to notice the reviews, those paper pellets which the pop- 

 guns of Scottish critics have propelled into our sanctum. Of the 

 first of these, the review signed " Z.," we have received no less than 

 five copies, all of them printed as separate handbills, and kindly 

 intended, no doubt, to save us the trouble of forming or expressing 

 any views of our own. But if this were the object it has entirely 

 failed, since we found something so curious in these effusions, that we 

 would fain inquire, What is it all about ? How is it that our Edin- 

 burgh friends, the especial friends, too, of Dr. Balfour, have so un- 

 mercifully belaboured that gentleman's book, while they speak of him 

 as an injured man, — a man, it would seem, injured by the badness of 

 his own book ? Poor Professor ! If thy reviewers could but have foreseen 

 the effect produced by so industriously ferreting out the errors of thy 

 book, they would surely have refrained from charging thy editorial suc- 

 cessor with leaving thy blunders uncorrected ! Well may st thou exclaim, 



