A Correspondent says: "That is all wrong (in Gardener's Monthly page 254,) about Agassiz. He did not ' leave quite a large estate.' He cannot be said to have left anything of his own making or saving. His son's wealth was made entirely by his own energy, skill, and good fortune".

[We are thankful for the correction, which it is due to the facts should be made. At the same time the point may be reiterated that it is not for the good of science that the poverty of its devotees should be commended, and the utter disregard of the means of subsistence held up to the young as worthy of imitation. While we all despise the person who makes the pursuit of truth wholly subservient to what he can coin from it, we see no necessity for a total abandonment of all thought for one's material interest. We see no reason why Agassiz' son's life may not be as prolific in benefits to science because he has taken a little time to make wealth by ' his own energy and skill,' as his father's was who really seems by our correspondent's note to have thought he had ' no time to make money.' It may once in a while occur that the scientific man, who neglects his material interests, succeeds in benefiting humanity; but as a general rule there is no being so pitiably useless as a poor philosopher. - Ed. G. M].