130 BOTANICAL GAZETTE 
against another which could scarcely proceed from any othera 
tion, so childish was the blunder imputed to him. At the meeting 
the American Association also a paper was read by a young mani 
had studied the carnation disease for one year charging two bot 
who had studied this disease for nearly seven years with most 
gious error regarding its cause. Other more remote example: 
occur to those who are familiar with botanical history. It maybe 
Magnus was right and Eriksson was wrong ; that Woods was ri 
Arthur and Bolley wrong; we cannot judge; but we wonderatt 
attitude of mind which assumes so great possibilities of aberraion® 
the part of another, and so few on one’s own. Is it not th 
criticism, which, couched in irreproachable language, proclaims! 
‘See what a silly blunder this man has made, and how easily I 
it,” the sort that rankles and leads to estrangement? And 
done its evil work in one direction, is it not quite likely to retur 
a boomerang and smite its author, if, perchance, renewed inve 
shows him mistaken ? 
IF WE aRE to avoid quarrels which quickly run through 
stone’s seven causes, we do well to take heed that our attitude 
not imply the quip quarrelsome while our words contain 0 
retort courteous. 
