Dr. Duncan, from whom this hiftory of plants is for the moft part copied; or in the medical botany of Woodville, with whom the fame liberty is alfo taken, and generally without reference or acknowledgement; but we do feel dif appointed in obtaining fo little information, with regard to the colouring matter of vegetables; a fubject highly valuable, and which may become much more fo, by a few hints in a work of this fort, and which might perhaps lead to more important discoveries.

The work abounds in typographical errors, particularly in the botanical names of plants, this may be a fource of confiderable inconvenience to the English readers of this work, and may tend both to puzzle and amufe the learned botanist, who has occafion to converfe with the pupils of Dr. T. in the table of contents, we meet with Auchufa for Anchufa, Avarum for Afarum, and numberless others, which we fhall be happy to fee corrected in a future edition.

The figures of the plants appear to be faithfully drawn and neatly executed; and upon the whole we may recommend the work as likely to prove an useful affiftant to the medical practitioner, and an amufing companion to thofe who wish to acquire fome knowledge of the virtues and properties of the various productions of the vegetable kingdom,

ART. X. The London Medical Dictionary, &c. &c.

ART. XI. The Edinburgh Medical and Phyfical Dictionarys &c. &c.

IN

[Concluded from our last, p. 160.]

Na furvey of the Surgical and Anatomical parts of two Medical Dictionaries, proceeding from two rival fchools, we hoped to have been able to prefent our readers with a comparative view of the state of those sciences, as they exist in each of these fchools. Our northern fifter has long fince made herself confpicuously eminent for the celebrity of her Physicians, but fhe has in general been confidered as by no means equally fruitful in Surgeons, particularly fo far as the operative part of that fcience is concerned. The metropolis of London certainly poffeffes advantages for the production of good Surgeons, which cannot in its prefent flate belong to fuch a city as Edinburgh. Connected as we are with the furrounding world; in the midst of a people, much lefs pré

7

jud iced

judiced against the encouragement of Anatomical purfuits, (with which improvement in Surgery is fo clofely allied,) and more immediately encircled by fuch an almoft overgrown population, we appear to poffefs all requifite means for progreffive improvement in a fcience fo truly practical. Accordingly we find that the English Surgeons, now ftand higheft in the estimation of the fcientific world. Formerly the French had a well-grounded claim to this precedence, but lately our extensive intercourse through the whole world, has produced advantages which have enabled us to wreft it from them. Our neighhours of Scotland, however, have made fome prodigious efforts, towards an equal perfection; they may be faid to have difputed with us every step, and perhaps, confidering their more limited means, they have really employed them with a greater degree of energy.

A curfory view, however, of the two prefent works convinced us, that it was perfectly impoffible to point out from them, the various fhades of difference to which we allude; and speedily gave us reafon to fufpect that a dictionary is almoft as little formed to furnish general views of science, as to afford more minute information. The author of the Edinburgh Dictionary, has certainly taken pains with the Surgical part of his work, but in general has not paid that attention to modern improvement, which we deem neceffary to render his work worthy the attention of the profeffors of this art; nor has he fufficiently confulted, nor brought to view the different opinions of various authors, having rather idly contented himself with extracting paffages, only from fuch as appear to coincide with his own peculiar views. In Dr. Parr's work, however, the general fault is much worse. He fets out by profeffing to be lefs minute upon Surgery and Anatomy, becaufe a complete knowledge of them can only be obtained, through the direct medium of the fenses; it may be fo, but this is no excufe for omiflion, for confufion, and much less for inaccuracy, with all which faults this part of his Dictionary certainly abounds. His account of these fciences indeed cannot be confidered as afford. ing a fair view, if any view at all, of their ftate of progress in this city, and by no means does juftice to the indefatigable labours of," thofe bold, and happily daring modern practitioners," who may truly be faid to have adorned their profeffion. The comparative merits however of the two works, with refpect to Anatomy and Surgery, will perhaps best be understood by selecting a few of the principal articles upon thefe fubjects, from each of them, for examination. And though in the execution of a work, containing fuch a variety

U

BRIT, CRIT. VOL. XXXVI. SEPT. 1810.

of

of fubject, perfection cannot reasonably be expected, yet if we difcover faults having a mischievous tendency, we must dif charge our duty, by pointing them out to the unwary, whom hafte, or deficiency may lead to confult a work in which they have been fuffered to appear.

The Anatomical parts of the Edinburgh Dictionary are infinitely superior to those of the London. Under the head Anatomy, the author has given us a concise history of the rife and progrefs of Anatomical knowledge; and following the example of that great man Dr. Hunter, has fhown how admirably adapted every part of the human frame is, for what, a priori, were we fuppofed to poffefs the power of forming a man upon the pureft mechanical principles, would be wanted for his accommodation. We are likewife peculiarly ftruck with the full, a id fuperior manner, in which he has treated the fubject of Arteries, giving in one view all that is known, and that is interefting concerning them, and clofing his account with an admirable table of their ufual mode of diftribution. In other parts of Anatomy he is like. wife in general correct, particularly in his account of the diftribution of the Nerves, in which he appears to have con+ fulted Monro, certainly the best author on the subject. Upon the Brain, and its different appearances he is not equally happy. We do not mean that we have difcovered any abfolute inaccuracies, but certainly many deficiencies, especially in his defcription of the Ventricles. The different parts of the brain have fo much, reference, the one to the other, that in order to be properly understood they require to be defcribed in regular fucceffion, as they prefent themselves in the profecution of its diffection. If therefore instead of defcribing appearances fo connected with each other, under Teparate articles, the author had given us one good general view, and merely referred us to it, under the heads of the feparate articles themfelves, we fhould have been better pleased, and fewer omiffions would have been likely to occur.

With refpect to the Surgical part of Mr. Kendrick's la bours, there is nearly as little caufe for complaint, at least where he has thought proper to exert himself. The articles upon injuries of the head, upon lithotomy, upon hernia, &c. evince the powers of the author; other articles however show a reprehenfible careleffnefs, and are flurred over in a very fuperficial manner. In gonorrhoea, after cautioning against the ufe of mercury, he has the following weak and foolish paffage: "In cafes of gonorrhoea, whenever mercury is adminiftered, it ought not to be with a view to expedite the cure, but merely to obviate the dangers of fyphilis,"

fyphilis," that is in other words (gonorrhoea being a local difeafe, to obviate the dangers of a difeafe which does not exift. If gonorrhoea be combined with any fyphilitic fymp toms, of course mercurials must be employed, but as a prevention, mercurials are as ridiculous as they are injurious: In Aneurifm Mr. Kendrick has too much confined himself to the works of his countrymen. They are very good fo far as they go; but our knowledge, and treatment of this disease have been much improved by authors. whofe labours have here been left unnoticed. The investigations of Scarpa, and the practical improvements of Abernethy, Cooper and others, were at leaft worthy of being mentioned. The most im portant omiffions, however, are, in the articles upon the dif cafes of the urinary organs. We can no where find a proper defcriptive diftinction between retention of urine and fuppreffion; and although in the articles Bougie, Ifchmia, and feveral others, we are referred to ftricture, no fuch article is to be found, and no proper description of that important difeafe given in any part of the work. It is, however, very flightly noticed under the head Urethra. Notwithstanding the deficiencies we have been under the neceffity of pointing out, it is very evident, that the Anatomical and Surgical parts of the Edinburgh Dictionary have been conducted by a Surgeon, and that a good one.

We wish, that upon turning to thefe fubjects in the Lon. don Dictionary, we could fay as much; we fhould be forry indeed, were we under the neceffity of deriving our ideas of the state of Anatomy and Surgery, in this metropolis, from the knowledge, or rather want of knowledge, which the editor throughout difplays. We have had occafion par ticularly to praise the northern Dictionary, for the admirable defcription of the Arteries which it contains, and we will now examine the fame article in the London compilation

After defcribing the termination of Arteries into veins it proceeds:

"The next termination of Arteries is into little cavities of finuses, as in the corpora cavernofa penis."

We are surprised the author does not here notice the obfervations of Monfieur Cuvier, who fuggefts that the arteries do not terminate in the corpus cavernofum, by open mouths into finuses, but that they terminate here as in other parts and that the occafional expansion of the part, does not depend upon blood being poured into, or extravafated into cells, but upon increased action in the part, and confequent increased vafcularity. If there be extravafation at any time into the

U 2

cells

cells of the corpora cavernofa it must according to the fuggeftion to which we have alluded, arife from a rupture of fome of the innumerable vessels with which they are fupplied.

"Arteries are fometimes found of a ferpentine form, but they are not fo in a natural state of health, except during particular actions, and then they recover their natural ftate as foon as the temporary caufe is removed."

This furely is a most extraordinary piece of information, and only to be rivalled by the Surgical accuracy which we fhall presently have occafion to point out. The compiler forgets the paffage of the carotid artery, into the cavity of the cranium, as an inftance of a very large artery taking a ferpentine direction; and with refpect to fmaller branches, the inftances are fo innumerable, that the youngest of our practical anatomists can most readily point them out.

"The arteries are liable to offification, particularly the iliae and crural. This happens where an amputation is performed. A cauftic is neceffary.

Where we meet with either a want of fenfe, or a want of English, we endeavour as far as we are able to comprehend what an author would mean, or fay, if he could express himfelf; but where we have to encounter want of fenfe, and want of English conjointly, we must confefs our inability to folve the difficulty. Perhaps the latter part of the fentence should ftand'thus: If this happen where an amputation is to be performed a cauftic will be neceffary.' This will make English of the paffage, but we fear not Surgery. What poffible advantage is to be gained by a cauftic, or how it is to be used, is beyond our knowledge. In the inftances we have feen, where the artery fnapped repeatedly upon tying it, the including a quantity of the furrounding flesh in the ligature, has with the affiftance of preffure anfwered every purpose ; poffibly however, the actual cautery might be of ufe in these cafes.

"From the upper part of the arch of the aorta rife the carotids, which fupply the head." "Near the carotids rife the fubclavian

arteries."

If it had been worth while to write the article from which this paffage is taken at all, we should think, that at any rate it would have been advisable to be correct; here nothing is faid of the very marked difference between the origin of the carotid and fubclavian arteries on the right fide, and the origin of the fame arteries upon the left. The above passage certainly