THE NATURAL HISTOBY REVIEW 413 
In 1860 a wider opening offered. Three years before that, 
the Natural History Review had been J estabhshed in Dubhn, 
its moving spirit and chief owner being Dr. Wright, whilst 
amongst others interested in it was Harvey, to whom Hooker 
wrote in candid condemnation of the first number and in par- 
ticular of a careless survey of Hooker's views on Natural Orders. 
I beg that you will read what I have said, and tell me 
if you are not wholly mistaken in your suppositions. If that 
is the way you are to review Botanists' labours for Dublin 
Review I think we had better keep up the Kew Journal in 
self defence. 
Indifferent success attended the Journal in its Dublin 
home. After nearly three years Dr. Wright proposed to trans- 
fer it to London, and to associate Huxley in the editorship, with 
practical control of the scientific side in his hands. Though 
the latter saw in the new scheme nothing but extra work for 
himself, it promised much for the interests of science, ' con- 
sidering the state of the times and the low condition of natural 
history pubhcations (always excepting Quarterly Mic. Journ.).' 
For three years he continued at this post, till overwhelmed 
by ever increasing work ; then, paid editors being appointed, he 
handed over to them the responsibility of the ' commissariat ' 
of the Review, which ran for two years more. 
To Hmit the amount of this extra work, however, he had to 
get co-editors. Writing to Hooker a full account of what had 
been done, he remarks : 
Now up to this point you have been in a horrid state of 
disgust, because you thought I was going to ask you next. 
But I am not, for rejoiced as I should be to have you, I know 
you have heaps of better work to do, and hate journahsm. 
But can you tell me of any plastic young botanist who 
would come in all for glory and no pay, though I think pay 
may be got if the concern is properly worked. How about 
Ohver ? And though you can't and won't be an editor 
yourself, won't you help us and pat us on the back ? 
To the new Natural History Review Hooker, however, both 
contributed and offered criticism. 
