APPENDIX A.—REPUTED DISCOVERIES. 95 
After quoting this important and impartial statement by one so 
well qualified to judge, and remembering that it was written years 
ago, when few had a good word to say for Don, and before the 
comfirmation of several of his records had been made, I shall do 
well to give the list of plants said to be recorded by. Don, and 
given as unverified by Sir J. D. Hooker in the “Student’s Flora,” 
and by other writers. 
surmise of such complaints till poor J[ohn] Mackay] had been a year in his 
grave, altho’ several of the disputed articles had been published long before his 
death. In excuse for this, Mr. D. I know alleges, that he had little opportunity, 
in the country, of learning what was published—which is very credible, tho’ not 
quite satisfactory. With the greatest respect for Mr. D. I must say, that he seems 
© me to have become rather too eager in appropriating his discoveries, and to 
have unfortunately fallen into a habitual inclination to detract from 1 the merit of 
an: 
D. I have, more than once, told him of this fault. In answer to your queries, 
I would say: When Mr. D. asserts a simple fact relative to himself, or that fell 
under his own eye (such as, that he himself found a certain plant, on a particular 
mountain, and on a certain date), I am convinced that you may rely implicitly on 
his word. But, if he speaks of things that did not fall under his own observation 
(such as denying that another man ever found a particular plant or visited a 
caer spot), I am convinced you would do well to hesitate. In short, Mr. D. 
certainly a man of great integrity and ee but as certainly is is very 
liable to ae and I might add, to be pos 
a as I can recollect, the cases that seem 1 goasially dubious and on which 
Mr. D, a strenuously insists, are two: Stellaria cerastoides and Thiaspi hirtum, 
You mention, I think, that Mr. M. found S¢. cerastoides on mountains to the north 
of Invercauld ; whereas, Mr. D. says Mr. M. was never so far north as Invercauld. 
there, without specifying 2 whan ; aad may not you (as naturally you would) 
have taken it for granted that M. himself was the finder? You can best determine 
the correctness of this supposition, if you happen to have preserved his letters. 
You also, I believe, give Mr. M. as the discoverer of 7h. Airtum near Perth; 
whereas Mr. D. alleges, Mr. M. has got his specimens out of Kinnoul garden, it 
having originally been fon wild by the Earl’s gardener in the neighbourhood 
Somewhere. Now, who can say that Mr. M. himself did not find 72. hirtum in 
country around Perth? From my knowledge of Mr. M. I cannot easily 
believe him capable of being so far led astray by a silly vanity, as directly to 
Violate the truth. But I condemn Mr. M.’s si/ence at anyrate, in any case. 
Except I knew the particuiar cases you refer to, it is impossible for me to aid in 
clearing Mr, M.’s memory. I consider the plan you point out, and are following 
(mentioning the claims of Mr. D. and others, and saying nothing of the deceased), 
as by far the best one, till you have completely satisfactory evidence.” 
EDINBURGH, 9th May, 1806. 
“T write you at present chiefly to inclose a little chapter on the natural history 
objects around Edinb., which I put together to oblige an acquaintance, Mr, 
1He wrote so to Sowerby, H.S, (Note by Sir J. E, Smith), 
