A friend who disapproves of the peculiar attitude of Professor Cope towards the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, calls our attention to some points in our June paragraph, which he thinks does not do full justice to Prof. Cope, though he thinks they are not important enough to need correcting. But the Gardener's Monthly corrects even trifling errors, for small errors may lead to greater ones. Professor Cope stated that he lost his position as an officer of the Academy as a penalty for six months' absence on a scientific exploration in Oregon; and we said that Prof. Cope did not tell the whole story. Our friend suggests that this leaves the impression on the reader that Prof. Cope may have done some very bad thing. If so, this seems to be Prof. Cope's own fault. In his endeavor to place the Academy before the public in the light of obstructing scientific investigation, he made the loss of his seat in the council of the Academy appear as a penalty for absence merely, when it was really a penalty for absence in violation of rules provided for such absence.

However, that not even the semblance of injustice may be done Prof. Cope, we may say, what Prof. Cope should have said himself, that on proper notice to the council a member may be away for any length of time; and it was the disregard of this rule, and not absence merely, that cost him his place.

The Jessup "fund" does not provide that the beneficiary should be only two years. The bequest was not conditioned in this way. We should have said the rules adopted for the management of the fund. Brevity is often at the expense of clearness.

When we referred to the immense amount of work done by the Academy on small means, we referred to five hundred paying members. At the moment of writing we had the whole list of members in mind. But a large number are honorary, - correspondents. The actual number of annual contributors is only about two hundred - $2,000. But this only makes it still more remarkable that so much should be done by this institution, and still more inexcusable the endeavor to make the public believe that it is doing very little useful work since Prof. Cope has had no voice in its management.