Іххіу А SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF 
If Hamilton can be said to have been more eminent and to have done more to 
advance human knowledge in one branch of science than in another, jer sea wa 
geography. One has only to allude to his excellent work in Av e se 
and Nepal as evidence of this; the combined and uniformly me às BELA 
geographers so eminent as John Crawford, Carl Ritter, Henry Yule and John S 
renders supererogatory anything that might be said here. ; 
M'Clelland says that Hamilton was professedly a botanist,’ a statement 2. жы 
be true; but if this was (һе case he certainly did not neglect Zoology, and t x 
is nothing in his writings to show that he wds more interested їп, or gave greater 
attention to, the one science than to the other. Тһе practieal testimony of Drs. Day 
and Günther as to the quality of Hamilton's zoological observations renders any allusion 
by the writer to his merits as a zoologist unnecessary. 
As regards Hamilton’s place among the botanists of India at the close of 18th 
and the commencement of the 19th century, it is needless to do more than quote 
the opinion of his ablest. contemporary. In a letter to Banks, dated 13th July 1797, 
Roxburgh says :— 
“I have mentioned Dr. Buchanan in the accompanying memorandum. He is a worthy 
valuable man and no doubt the best botanist in India." 
Looking back, as we now ean, with all the advantage that a true perspective 
affords, and with the further advantage of being ablo to judge by results, we cannot 
entirely endorse Roxburgh's view. In spite of his limitations Roxburgh himself, 
though not a scholar and though, аз his works show, obviously a less critical 
cbserver than Hamilton was, has proved himself the greater and more useful 
constructive worker of the two, But, while this is the case, there is no doubt that, 
after Roxburgh, Hamilton was the best botanist in India of his day, and we can 
readily concede that as a botanical critic he was certaihly Roxburgh’s superior. 
i geology was well abreast of the time 
in which he lived, as allusions in his letters and as his various papers dealing with 
these subjects show. He appears, indeed, to hava given the same attention to these 
matters that he gave to zoology and botany, 
The change of name from Buchanan to Hamilton has led 
illogical results. Cuvier suggested that as Hamilton was best kno 
his earlier name he ought always to be cited as 
references. M’@lelland has gone further and has said that Cuvier’s suggestion should be 
adopted because most of Hamilton’s publications appeared under the name Buchanan, 
It is not at all clear that Cuvier was correct in what he said; it is not known, and it 
is hardly to be supposed, that Hamilton had an extensive 
personal acquaintance with 
European workers while he served in the East, and before he changed his name. In 
any case M'Olelland's remark has bsen made without due consideration for facts ; 
Hamilton only published two brief zoological papers and one brief botanieal one under 
the name Buchanan, and only one of the journals in which economie, às opposed to 
scientifie, references to natural produets appear, was published before Hamilton had to 
assume his later name. | 
m ss ЖШШЕ Le 
—— 
i Asiatic Researches dix, 923. 
to some rather oddly 
wn to nataralists by 
“ Hamilton Buchanan” in systematic 
