20 
vegetation/ I have no doubt that Mr. Lesquereux quoted 
from memory, and probably supposed that he was expressing 
my meaning, but an English writer should have referred to 
the original. I may add that the specimen referred to in Mr. 
Binney’s article does not exhibit the characters of my genus 
Psilophyton , which does not contain Mucoids’ but land plants 
of the rank of acrogens and of which not merely the exter- 
nal forms but also the internal structures are described and 
figured in the report referred to. The plant in question 
much more closely resembles Buthotrephis Harknessii of 
Nicholson from the Skiddaw slates / 5 
With all due deference to Dr. Dawson I fail to see why I 
should send to London in order to consult his original re- 
port. Professor Lesquereux had sent me a copy of his (the 
Professor’s) paper on Psilophytum cornutum published in 
the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 
This I received early in December, and immediately noticed 
the great resemblance, if not identity, of his P. cornutum 
with my Manx specimen. In noticing the latter I stated 
that I should give his description at length, and I accord- 
ingly gave it in inverted commas, word for word, including 
the part Dr. Dawson complains of. Surely he cannot 
seriously charge me with misquotation under such circum- 
stances ! However, the Professor’s offence, if any, was pub- 
lished in the Transactions of the American Philosopical 
Society for November last year, I believe, and it appears the 
Doctor does not set the public and himself right by commu- 
nicating with that society, but, without a moment’s delay, in 
October of this year, sends over to Nature his so-called mis- 
quotation and its correction, adding that I “as an English 
writer should have referred to the original.” Now as no 
