My Dear Sir,

I do not know in what terms to make my apology to you for having placed you in so objectionable a position, as to be sponsor for a rejected paper.²

The lesson to me is a severe one, but one to be profited by & for the future I shall not venture into subjects where even my elementary knowledge seems deficient. The snubbing about the use of the terms seems, from the pencilled remarks of the referee, to be thoroughly deserved, and if you know who he is, I should be obliged if you would let him know this.

I was and am now perfectly unacquainted with the authors whom you mention, and my apology must be that if I have gone over old ground I did it in ignorance & that my work has been found fault with only in its want of novelty seems to be an appreciation of its fidelity. I must say further that I may be excused for my ignorance when the most eminent botanist of the day seems equally unaware of the work of these authors and gives an inaccurate account of structures which I am certain I describe exactly³

I am sorry not to have information on the objections to the physiological part of my paper.⁴ These I should be quite ready to give issue on by facts & the conclusions from them with the referee, no matter who he may be, and I should be glad to have an opportunity to discuss the subject with him.

Could you tell me where Hashall & Griffith’s work is to be found?⁵ I cannot even find a reference to their names.

Yours truly, | Lawson Tait