A correspondent of the London Garden says:

"I see that Mr. Meehan says ' the Cambridge Garden is a long way ahead of anything of the kind in America. The Bartram Gardens have little to boast of but a few valuable old trees. Fairmount Park has done wonderfully well considering how rarely a body under political influences comes to much. Mr. Shaw's garden considering that it is the work of one man's lifetime is a rare monument of success. It could hardly be expected to compete with an old institution like Cambridge. In short, Cambridge well deserves the honor of being the best botanic garden in the United States.' No doubt it is so, and yet when I saw it, it was a poor ramshackle affair made after the very poor models in Europe, and without a feature of any particular interest. In this respect it differed much from some of the public parks in America, which are quite equal to anything in Europe".

Cambridge Botanic Garden, since it was remodelled under Professor Sargent's care, is anything else, but the "poor ramshackle affair," the writer above quoted may have seen in the past. But we wish chiefly to say that our reference to it was as a "botanic" garden, and had regard to its collections of plants. If we were to take beauty into account chiefly, Mr. Shaw's garden is a very long way ahead of Cambridge. Indeed as we have already said of Cambridge, its chief defect to our mind is its adherence to the old-time notions that herbarium arrange-ments must be copied in the garden, and all landscape beauty sacrificed to mistaken scientific requirements. In this respect it is much better than it was once, though still weak, - and yet it is our best " botanic " garden.