ON THE ABUSE OF PRINTS IN WORKS ON NATURAL HISTORY. 
By Peter Rylands, Esq. 
“ When Doctors disagree, who shall decide ?” is a query long known, and often 
asked; and although neither Mr. Lees nor myself have any claim to that title 
around which is associated a halo of erudition, yet a student reading our respective 
articles might fairly repeat the inquiry. Whilst one self-constituted teacher 
strongly reprobates the system of using plates and other easy methods of obtaining 
a knowledge of specific appellations, the other as decidedly recommends them. 
Perhaps, however, Mr. L/s views and my own may be less conflicting than first 
appearances might lead us to suppose. I readily admit, that for a certain class 
who require enticivg , whose ardour would fail before even slight obstacles, and 
whose time or inclination will not admit of a long and devoted course of study, it 
is necessary that an 46 easy road” should, if possible, be provided. Nor is this 
class small. It includes, perhaps, the majority of those persons whom we con¬ 
tinually hear “admiring Nature,” extolling the wonderful structure of an insect, 
or the opening beauties of a flower; and yet who have no true interest in these 
objects, or manifest no real desire to discover more of Nature’s excellencies. They 
talk much, but feel little. Now, it is highly possible that in some of these 
individuals a strong interest might be excited : and to do this every facility 
ought to be given to aid their acquisition of knowledge ; as with the increase of 
knowledge will the desire of knowing more be strengthened. 
But we find others whose love of Nature will not allow contentment with a 
slight and superficial acquaintance with her works; and whose fixed purpose it 
is to attain, if possible, a proficiency in their study. These are, in fact, the true 
students of Natural History. The difference between the two classes may result, 
as it probably does, from the relative development of the perceptive faculties. 
If Mr. Lees applies his remarks to this as well as to the former class, we are 
certainly at issue; and notwithstanding the deference I am always willing to 
pay to the observations of my “ elders and betters” in the science (and it is no 
humility in me to say that Mr. Lees is one), I must beg to offer some reasons 
for dissenting from his opinions. 
First, then, to divest the subject of any erroneous associations, I must object 
to Mr. L/s closing simile (Vol. III., p- 301), which does not, in my opinion, 
exactly meet the case. If instead of the ascension of a mountain, he had selected 
a journey performed by one traveller on foot, and the other by railway, his image 
would have been more applicable. B.oth arrive at the same destination; though 
the former requires hours for its attainment, and the latter only minutes. But 
which learns the most ? which sees the most of the country ? whose experience 
