Retrospective Criticism. 723 



you have both been pleased to speak of me personally. This I do in 

 perfect good humour; because you know well that I long ago predicted, 

 and consequently expected, this chastisement. I am only assailed on 

 what, I am very sensible, is my weak side, namely, my inadequate powers 

 of language. Still there is something cheering; not a word is said against 

 what may be called my peculiar opinions on the subject, which my reviewer 

 regrets so much I should have meddled with. These opinions, such as 

 they are, I suspect, constitute " the head and front of my offending." 

 They, though in truth too briefly asserted, are plain enough to practical 

 men ; and why should they be so mysterious to a man of science ? The 

 reason is obvious, though it is not for me to explain. Had these opinions 

 been refuted, both my readers and myself would have been instructed. 

 Refutation, it seems, would have been an easy affair ; and it would have 

 been far more graceful and consistent with the character of a superior, to 

 have ingenuously exposed my mistakes, than to have thrown over the whole 

 such a guise of ridicule. This omission I shall therefore accept as an 

 indirect compliment ; and I also flatter myself that, had my book received 

 even a very slight perusal, my reviewer could not have charged me with 

 such ignorance of vegetable structure, as to be unable to distinguish a root 

 from any other member of a plant. 



Having passed this cold ivater ordeal, I shall not, however, quail under 

 it, as it is more than probable I may again take up the subject of vegetable 

 physiology in another shape ; in doing which I shall certainly avail myself 

 of my reviewer's grammatical corrections, which I have no doubt are just, 

 though I am not accountable for the misuse of all the terms. It will then 

 be seen whether the same ideas, conveyed in other words, will be more 

 palatable ; though this 1 hardly expect. Still, if I can but gain, as I have 

 already done, the approval of practical pens, I shall not dread the erasures 

 recommended by your friend my reviewer. Believe me to remain, Sir, 

 yours, &c. — J. Main. Chelsea, October 4. 1830. 



Destroying Earwigs by Tin Pipes. — A correspondent (J. M., p. 491.) 

 recommends the adoption of small tin tubes for the purpose of catching 

 earwigs which annoy fruit on wall trees. Instead of going to the tin- 

 man for the said tubes, let us apply to our own garden ; to the Eng- 

 lish bamboo, which every one that has a plot of ground may grow, the 

 /iriindo -Ddnax. With this, not only may the liquorish-mouthed earwig meet 

 a dire fate, but the head of ingenuity sacrifice to the god Pan in concord 

 of sweet sounds. — W. Mason, jun. Necton Hall, Norfolk, August, 1830. 



Bishop's Dwarf and Early Frame Peas. — In the observations following 

 the list of prices of fruits, vegetables, &c, of Covent Garden Market 

 (p. 372.), it is stated that Bishop's peas dropped their blossoms eight days 

 sooner than the early frame. I did not notice the dropping of the blossom. 

 Bishop's dwarf pea being a favourite with me, I resolved to give it a fair 

 comparative trial with the frame. On the 15th of February, 1830, 1 had a 

 favourable border trenched over, and sown the first afternoon ; first, two 

 rows 2 ft. apart of the Bishop's, and then five rows of the early frame 

 3 ft. apart. The first dish I could gather from the early frame was on the 

 15th of June; the first dish I gathered from Bishop's was on the 1st of 

 July. _ W. P. Vaughan. Brecon, July 20. 1830. 



Q?iercus Jlobtir and sessiliflora. — Sir, As I know you do not mind being 

 found fault with, I take the liberty of questioning your accuracy (in a 

 friendly manner, and merely in the way of private correction) on one or 

 two points in your Number for August. First, then, at p. 458., you seem 

 disposed to consider Quercus -ffobur and sessiliflora as mere varieties : this 

 may be matter of opinion, though, for myself, I am inclined to think them 

 distinct species. But be this as it may, you certainly are not correct in 

 stating that " the latter name (sessiliflora) is merely a synonyme of Sir J. 

 Smith's, in his English Botany, to distinguish it from Q. pedunculita." Both 



3 A 2 



