Dr, Graham^ s Reply to Dr, Wight » 



467 



felishment at Bl'ussels is in itself a society-j — and especially of the 

 Geographical Society of Paris, now in the fifteenth year of its exist- 

 ence. Besides its monthly bulletins, it has completed five volumes of 

 a Recueil de M^moires, some of them of great interest; and particu- 

 larly that on the Orographic de I'Europe. The two last contain the 

 relation of RubruquiSj and the Geography of Edrisi, translated by M. 

 A. Janberti The work of AbU-l-feda is soon to follow. 



Neither can we omit to mention the liberality with which during 

 each of the three p^ist years this ^Society has awarded a medal for dis- 

 covery to three of our countfymeti—Burnes, Ross^ and Back. May 

 the mutual correspondence of the several Societies^ and the exchange 

 of information^ stiwiulate each other to press fotward in the cause of 

 geography ! and we hail the foundation of a Geographical Society at 

 Frankfort-on-the-Main (the news of which has only this day reached 

 us), headed by the names of Kriegk and of Meidinger, as an earnest 

 that many valuable labourers are about to take a share in promoting 

 the object for which we are instituted — the advancement of geogra- 

 phical science and discovery.— »/ourna/ of the Royal Geographical 

 Society, Vol. 7, pp. 172-195. 



3. — Remarks by Dr. GraiIam, Professor of Botany in the tlniversity 

 of Edinburgh, on the paper by Dr. Wight, on the tree which pro" 

 duces the Gamboge of Commerce^ continued in the \'6th No. of the 

 Madras Journal. 



The botany of Southern India is in excellent keeping. The zeal of 

 Colonel and Mrs. Walker is unwearied, and their exertions are bring- 

 ing to our knowledge a host of new and interesting plants. The en- 

 thusiasm of my excellent friend i)r. Wight is not second to theirs, and, 

 fortunately for the science, in pursuit of which he makes extraordina- 

 ry efforts, the field of his operations is much more extended. Every 

 thing which he writes will and ought to be received by botanists with 

 deference ; and therefore I am anxious to Correct one or two miscon- 

 ceptions into which, from the position in which he is, he has very na- 

 turally fallen* His knowledge of niy opinions was, at the time he 

 wrote these observations, derived solely from a letter which I had 

 written to him, before I was myself acquainted with all the arguments 

 upon which my opinion might be supported. If he had read the more 

 detailed account which 1 was, subsequently, able to publish in the 



