Retrospective Criticism. 117 



don," much as they may endanger the heads of passing travellers, tend to 

 corroborate our character. But, Sir, if a nation of gardeners, we are by 

 no means a nation of scientific gardeners ; and the question is, to what 

 description of readers your work may be considered as most particularly 

 applicable ? If it be mejint for the use of the higher branches of the pro- 

 fession, as noblemen or gentlemen's gardeners, I submit that this class of 

 readers are few in themselves, and generally well informed on all their dif- 

 ferent departments ; indeed, the situations they hokl appear to presuppose 

 this, so that it is only on some nice points of criticism that your work can 

 be useful even to them. And if it be meant for the generalitj' of amateur 

 gardeners, who perhaps hardly ever heard of Linnieus, or any of his hard 

 names, why, Sir, to this, and (allow me to say this is, or ought to be, by far 

 the largest portion of your readers) yours is, in a great part of it, a " sealed 

 book." We sometimes read without satisfaction or improvement, and the 

 small space allotted to " queries and ansv, ers " is all that is intelligible to 

 us. 1 may be wrong, but I conceive the Gardener's Magazine should be 

 written for the instruction and anuisement of the mamj, not the scientific 

 few. If I am right, you will readily perceive how large a portion of your 

 late Numbers are perfectly incomprehensible to them. This is a letter of 

 reproof, so one word as to your communications relative to the Horticul- 

 tural Society in London. My good Sir, what possible interest can your 

 readers have in being told that Mr. A. sent a paper on raising apple trees 

 from pips ; Mr. B. presented fourteen sorts of cardoons antl nine sorts of 

 celery ; or Mr. C. one on the cultivation of mushrooms ? Unless you can 

 give us some practical information from the works of the Society, do fill 

 your pages with something more useful, instructive, or anuising. Perhaps 

 you will think I have lectm'ed enough for one letter. — J, M, Susscr^Ajjrif, 

 1830. 



The Botanical Register. — Sir, In the number of the Botanical Register 

 for January I observe a note signed J. L., in which the writer defends the 

 editor of that work against the charge made against him of frequently 

 publishing the same plants which have before appeared in other works. 

 Having been myself one of those that joined in making this complaint 

 (Vol. VI. p. 721.), I think it but justice to say that the writer of the note 

 has, as it appears to me, made out such a case in defence of the practice, 

 that I for one (though a subscriber to the Botanical Jllagazine as well as 

 to the Register) am ready to absolve the editor of this charge. The evil, 

 if evil it is, appears to be in some degree absolutel}' unavoidalile ; and if 

 one portion of the public are losers, another (and that, it seems, the more 

 numerous of the two) are gainers by the practice. But the most serious 

 charge against the Register, viz. " the imposition of an additional shilling 

 for a single leaf of index at the end of every twelve numbers," still 

 remains unanswered, iind is passed over on this occasion in utter silence. 

 Not a syllable is said about this tvvelvepenny worth of index, miscalled 

 appendix^ although the publication of the note in the last number of the 

 Register, in answer to one charge; would seem to have afforded a fair 

 opportunity for replying to the other also, and that by far the more serious 

 charge of the two. I trus.t, however, that it is the mtention of the editor 

 at once to discontinue this mean underhand practice, or at least to offer 

 some explanation or apology to the public for not doing so. Yours, Sec. — 

 A Subscriber to the Botanical Register. Jan. 3. IS.31. 



The lAternl Translation of Botanical Names, Sfc. — I wish to say that I 

 quite agree with you in reprobating the great want of attention, in the gene- 

 rality of botanical authors, to making the English name a more literal trans- 

 lation of the Linnean. I find even Dr. Hooker frequently connnitting him- 

 self in this way ; for instance, in the Botanical Magazine for September 

 liist, he gives us Anthericum bulbosum. Bulbous-rooted Lancashire As- 

 phodel. Would not any one sup[)ose li'om that name that it was a native of 



I .'3 



