VALUE OF * PRECUESOKES ' 371 



Botany is all going dogward through the desultory doings 

 of its votaries. I have been for four years past much mixed 

 up with Physical Science men, and have found much to 

 admire in their way of doing business. They let no oppor- 

 tunity slip of getting all they can for the furtherance of 

 their publications and observations, whilst Botanists stand 

 by and depreciate their own efforts and studies. I wish I 

 could get you here for six weeks and join in a general effort 

 to lift Botany up in the scale of appreciated sciences. 



And a month later he meets Harvey's reluctance to pub- 

 lish preliminary sketches in advance of the magnum opus 

 on which he was engaged Precursores to the first Orders 

 of the Cape Flora, like 'Hooker's Precursores ad Floram 

 Indicam : 



We differ (you and I) toto coelo as to what we think 

 good and bad. I suppose from your calling such diagnostic 

 Praecursores of Cape Genera as I proposed your publishing 

 ' fushionless stuff,' I am to take that as your verdict on the 

 Praecursores ad Floram Indicam ! ! Now I daresay you 

 are right as to the way in which the Praecursores are done, 

 but I hold that such work, if properly done, is about the most 

 valuable that can be contributed to Bot. Science. What 

 the deuce do you call useful work, if accurate descriptions 

 of the genera and species of very little known large tracts 

 of the Earth's surface are not so ? So * fire away, Flanagan/ 

 as your illustrious countryman Lever has it. 



January 10, 1857. 



DEAR HARVEY, I assure you I was only in joke in 

 pretending that you intended to snub the Praecursores, 

 though I do assure you that they are not so good as you 

 take them for : the complication of systematic Botany is 

 so great that I make many important omissions, and I must 

 say I am heartily glad that I am prefacing the Flora Indica 

 (if it is ever to appear) with these less assuming attempts. 

 Plenty of people point out omissions in such contributions 

 who fear to plunge into a detailed work, or if they do to 

 criticise its assumed learning. 



On the other hand do you not undervalue t|ie amount 

 and kind of systematic Botany that you have to dispense ? 



