94 THE LIFE AND WORK OF GEORGE DON. 
whose knowledge not only of plants, but of mankind, was very 
thorough. He had the critical element very largely in his com- 
es and he was extremely keen in detecting “errors” and 
“ impositions,” and was merciless in exposing and punishing 
mistakes ; neither wealth nor position for a moment deterred him, 
and all our leading botanists at one time or another felt the smart 
of his lash, so that we may be sure that any opinion on Don which 
he may give wil} not be influenced unduly by mercy. Thisis what 
he says—“It appears that Don was in the habit of bringing the 
plants found on his excursions, into his garden for cultivation, and 
there can be scarcely a doubt that he occasionally gave or sold 
plants from his garden without explaining that they were not sent 
direct from native localities, but indirectly through his garden. 
When we add to this obvious source of error, on the part of both 
sender and receiver, the fact that botanists were far less particular 
about the nativity of specimens some half a century ago, and also 
that George Don, not having a scientific education, was loose even 
among the loose in his indications and reports of localities, the 
presumption of frequent errors becomes very strong. Hence I 
come to the conclusion that everything reported by or from Don, 
and remaining unverified after modern search, ought to be excluded 
from our list of native plants and their stations; it being safer in 
science to take the chance of losing a few truths of small detail, 
than to run the great risk of mingling many errors with our presumed 
facts. Still, Ido not see that anything at present known of his 
conduct or any necessary inferences from known facts would 
sufficiently warrant us in charging him with intentional deception 
or wilful falsehood. My individual impression is that Don’s reports 
of species and stations, though many of them were doubtless 
correct, cannot be safely relied upon in strict science unless 
confirmed afresh, but that a fair degree of moral confidence should 
still be given to his statement.”! 
' The following extracts from two letters to Sir J. E. Sthith from Dr. Patrick 
Neill (Smith Corresp. Linn. Soc. as who was so good a friend to Don, have an 
important bearing on this subject : 
EDINBURGH, 5th November, 1804. 
““On my return, some time ago, from Orkney and Shetland, where I had spent 
the autumn in seeing some relatives, and in pursuing natural history, I received 
from Mr. Don your Pr ahieto letter. I have been much occupied with business 
since my rat ae d hope you will excuse the lateness of this reply. 
‘The matter you refer to (respecting Mr. Dfon]’s complaints on the late Mr. 
M[ackay] te plagiarism, &c,) is of some delicacy. I myself never heard a 
