Retrospective Criticism. II7 



don," much as they may endanger the heads of passing travellers, tend to 

 corroborate our character. But, Sir, if a nation of gardeners, we are by 

 no means a nation of scientific gardeners ; and the question is, to what 

 description of readers your work may be considered as most particularly 

 applicable ? If it be meant for the use of the higher branches of the pro- 

 fession, as noblemen or gentlemen's gardeners, I submit that this class of 

 readers are few in themselves, and generally well informed on all their dif- 

 ferent depai'tmentsj indeed, the situations they hold appear to presuppose 

 this, so that it is only on some nice points of criticism that your work can 

 be useful even to them. And if it be meant for the generality of amateur 

 gardeners, who perhaps hardly ever heard of Linnaeus, or any of his hard 

 names, why. Sir, to this, and (allow me to say this is, or ought to be, by far 

 the largest portion of your readers) yours is, in a great part of it, a " sealed 

 book." We sometimes read without satisfaction or improvement, and the 

 small space allotted to " queries and answers " is all that is intelligible to 

 us. I may be wrong, but I conceive the Gardener's Magazine should be 

 written for the instruction and amusement of the manT/, not the scientific 

 few. If I am right, you will readily perceive how large a portion of your 

 late Numbers are perfectly incomprehensible to them. This is a letter of 

 reproof, so one word as to your communications relative to the Horticul- 

 tural Society in London. My good Sir, what possible interest can your 

 readers have in being told that Mr. A. sent a paper on raising apple trees 

 from pips ; Mr. B. presented fourteen sorts of cardoons and nine sorts of 

 celery ; or Mr. C. one on the cultivation of mushrooms ? Unless you can 

 give us some practical information from the works of the Society, do fill 

 your pages with something more useful, instructive, or amusing. Perhaps 

 you will think I have lectiu-ed enough for one letter. — J. M. Sussex, April, 

 1830. 



The Botanical Register. — Sir, In the number of the Botanical Register 

 for January I observe a note signed J. L., in which the writer defends the 

 editor of that work against the charge made against him of frequently 

 publishing the same plants which have before appeared in other works. 

 Having been myself one of those that joined in making this complaint 

 (Vol. VL p. 721.), I think it but justice to say that the writer of the note 

 has, as it appears to me, made out such a case in defence of the practice, 

 •that I for one (though a subscriber to the Botanical Magazine as well aa 

 to the Register) am ready to absolve the editor of this charge. The evil, 

 if evil it is, appears to be in some degree absolutely unavoidable ; and if 

 one portion of the public are losers, another (and that, it seems, the more 

 numerous of the two) are gainers by the practice. But the most serious 

 charge against the Register, viz. " the imposition of an additional shilling 

 for a single leaf of index at the end of every twelve numbers," still 

 remains unanswered, and is passed over on this occasion in utter silence. 

 Not a syllable is said about this twelvepenny worth of index, miscalled 

 appendix, although the publication of the note in the last number of the 

 Register, in answer to one charge, would seem to have afforded a fair 

 opportunity for replying to the other also, and that by far the more serious 

 charge of the two. I trust, however, that it is the intention of the editor 

 at once to discontinue this mean underhand practice, or at least to oifer 

 some explanation or apology to the public for not doing so. Yours, &c. — 

 A Subscriber to the Botanical Register. Jan. 3. 1831. 



The Literal Translation of Botanical Names, S^c. — I wish to say that I 

 quite agree with you in reprobating the great want of attention, in the gene- 

 rality of botanical authors, to making the English name a more literal trans- 

 lation of the Linnean. I find even Dr. Hooker frequently committing him- 

 self in this way ; for instance, in the Botanical Magazine for September 

 last, he gives us Anthericum bulbosum, Bulbous-rooted Lancashire As- 

 phodel. Would not any one suppose from that name that it was a native of 



I 3 



