J REMARKS ON M. 
x REMARKS 
| ON M. SPACH'S MEMOIR ON 
THE CISTACE. 
" (In a letter addressed to the Editor of this Journal. ) 
London, April 4th, 1837. 
My DEAR S1r,—In the last number of 
_ the Companion to the Botanical Magazine, 
P283, is a note upon Cistacee, so remark- 
able, that I actually rubbed my eyes, in 
the belief that I was either dreaming while 
read it, or that I had been writing some 
elaborate monograph of that Order, with- 
out being aware of it. “We conceive,” 
says the author of the note in question, 
" we conceive Dr. Lindley to have taken 
‘A wrong view of the matter, in character- 
lang Cistacee,” &c.—- Dr. Lindley seems 
almost equally in error in most of his other 
Statements ;’—and further on, the same Dr. 
Lindley is charged, with mistaking one 
thing, misunderstanding another, and so 
. h. However, upon looking to the name 
of the author of so learned a piece of cri- 
ficism, the mystery was explained; for it 
"a out to be only a new specimen of 
= ~ WMenuity for which Mr. Spach has 
much notoriety, 
Regius Pro- 
r of Botany at Glasgow is the Editor ; 
Just a 
as a very 
E your own is, as I shall pre- 
Scrape Sr. Ses quite as much in the 
ji Mr - Spach is pleased to call the 
| u: ** mis-state- 
* Misunderstandings,” blunders, 
SPACH’S MEMOIR ON THE CISTACE Æ. ' 
and I can't tell what besides, are really 
enough to break the back of any poor Sroa- 
ture’s reputation, and I dare say nothing 
short of the annihilation of so humble an 
individual as myself is looked for as the 
result of such a thunder-clap. Writers, 
however, should always be careful, when 
they fire their great guns, not to expose 
themselves to the ricochet of their own 
shot, and I would most particularly recom- 
mend this maxim to Mr. Spach’s consi- 
deration, 
In the present case, it happens that the 
errors, mis-statements, &c. aforesaid, do 
not belong to me, but to the actual state 
of systematic Botany. They have not 
originated in any observations or mis-ob- 
servations of mine; but have been simply 
recorded by me, in the course of a general 
work, as the received opinions of the best 
authorities of the day. Had I either writ- 
ten a critical monograph of the Order, like 
M. Dunal, or generalized upon a few soli- 
tary observations regarding outlying spe- 
cies, after the fashion of Mr. Spach, it 
would have been very well to lay the er- 
rors, provided always that the errors are 
proved, at my door; but, as I am uncon- 
scious of having put forward any claim to 
originality in the matter, I really do not 
see why I should usurp to myself all the 
honour of Mr. Spach’s vituperation. 
This gentleman sets up for a model of 
exact observation— 
He can distinguish and divide 
A hair ’twixt south and south-west side ; 
Knows more than forty of us do, 
As far as words and terms can go ; 
and therefore it behoves me to be very 
particular, first, in proving my want of all 
title to the compliments he has paid me; 
and secondly, in showing to whom they 
really do belong as much as tome. You 
will find in the first of the following 
columns, the errors, blunders, mis-state- 
ments, misconceptions, misunderstandings, 
&c. alleged to be chargeable upon myself, 
and in the three other columns paral 
passages from the writings of gentlemen 
whose authority I do not think you likely 
to call in question ; 
Y 
