MEMOIK OF THE AUTHOR. XIX 



attempt an appreciation of his work in this field, and I am not 

 in the least qualified to deal with the subject. He always main- 

 tained that Phrenology rested on a sound scientific basis. His 

 two phrenological works are ' Statistics of Phrenology, being an 

 account of the progress and present state of that science in the 

 British Isles,' published in 1836, and a controversial pamphlet 

 in reply to an attack by Mr. Scott on Combe's ' Constitution of 

 Man.' He edited the 'Phrenological Journal' from 1830 to 

 1840, and wrote various articles in it at other times. His reason 

 for giving up the editorship, as stated in ' Men of the Time,' is 

 so characteristic that I cannot forbear citing it. 



" For some years he edited the ' Phrenological Journal,' but 

 eventually withdrew from it, on finding that grave offence was 

 given to more zealous advocates of that study, through his too 

 freely pointing out the imperfect character of its evidences and 

 definitions, and the ne«d of more exact investigations." 



In early life he devoted a good deal of attention to Entomology, 

 and made a collection of upwards of a thousand British and 

 eight hundred exotic species of insects. As he gradually settled 

 down to Geographical Botany, he gave up insect collecting, and 

 in 1834 sent the collection to Sir J. D. Hooker, who was thirteen 

 or fourteen years his junior. It is interesting to notice that our 

 leading botanists of the present time. Sir Joseph Hooker, Pro- 

 fessor Babington, Dr. Boswell, and Mr. Watson, were all ardent 

 entomologists before they finally settled down to Botany. 



He was a man of great individuaUty and of many-sided 

 character, and I have often been amused to note how differently 

 different people estimated him, according to the parts of his dis- 

 position with which they had been brought in contact. From a 

 scientific point of view, he finished the task which in early hfe 

 he set himself to accomplish with admirable perspicacity and 

 completeness. When M. Alphonse DeCandoUe lately made out 

 a list of botanical epochs, he counted the publication of the 

 ' Cybele ' as one of them. But in some ways it was not the best 

 part of his disposition that his published writings show. With 



