As was to be expected, the public were disinclined to pur- 

 chase the New York edition, and as more than one of the trade 

 disapproved of the interference, Messrs. Wiley and Putnam 

 issued their " Notice," or, what would be more correctly termed, 

 an apology to the trade. 



Tn this " Notice," assertions are made, which are entirely 

 without foundation. This would have been proved to the sat- 

 isfaction of all, before this, had the editor not preferred to wait 

 for evidence. It has now come to hand, and has, moreover, 

 been confirmed by a gentleman, who has long been intimately 

 connected with the British Association, and who is thoroughly 

 familiar with all its rules and customs. But upon the pub- 

 lished evidence alone, contained in the annual volumes of the 

 Association, the assertions of Messrs. Wiley and Putnam will be 

 seen to have no foundation. 



Messrs. Wiley and Putnam published their edition, with a 

 notice attached to it, that it was "faithfully copied from the Lon- 

 don edition." This is freely admitted, and a more certain meth- 

 od of diminishing its value could hardly have been found, than 

 that of pasting in each copy this certificate by themselves, that 

 their book contains all the errors of the London press, a 

 press from which, scientific works, especially where figures are 

 concerned, are so often admitted by the authors themselves to 

 be incorrect. We have an example in Turner's Chemistry, a 

 book in the hands of every Chemist in this country ; it was not 

 until after the many and laborious corrections of the accom- 

 plished editor of the American edition, that it could be relied 

 upon. 



In their "Notice," Messrs. Wiley and Putnam say, "the work 

 being prepared at the request of, and paid for by, the British 

 Association, &c., could not be, and was not published, until pre- 

 sented to, and read before the Association, which was done on 

 the 24th of June. (See Athenaeum, 1 July 2d.)" 



There is not the slightest foundation for this positive asser- 

 tion, the book was not read, nor was it paid for, by the Asso- 

 ciation. On referring to the " Athenaeum" of July 2d, what do 

 we read in the account of the proceedings of the Association? 



