from an ovate one? Or a thin-sided pericarp a different type of 
structure from a thicker-sided one? Mr. Spach says yes; and upon 
such differences is the larger part of his new genera (!!) proposed. 
To me, however, and 1 should hope to the greater number of Bota- 
nists who have any idea what general views are, such opinions 
appear contrary to common sense. If the example of writers like 
Mr. Spach were to be followed, systematic Botany would be resolved 
into its original elements: books would consist of mere masses of 
species; all power of analysis would be at an end, and the great 
objects of classification would be annihilated. 
A proneness to disturb existing nomenclature is very commonly 
alleged against modern Botanists in a mass, and is looked upon by 
the Public, who are much inconvenienced by it, as a besetting sin 
in modern Natural History. That there is a good deal of prejudice, 
much misconception, and no small degree of ignorance in this po- 
pular outery, 1 or any Botanist could easily prove; for it is impos- 
sible that, m a science of observation, the ideas of any man should 
remain fixed and immoveable, unless, indeed, in the case of those 
gentlemen whom Science every now and then leaves so far behind 
her, that, in the end, they are well nigh lost sight of altogether. 
As new objects are discovered the necessity of new systematic combi- 
nations becomes evident, and the ideas of Botanists change accord- 
ingly, the visible result of which is occasional changes in nomen- 
clature. Genera are thus materially affected from time to time, 
and new species as they are discovered render the creation of new 
genera necessary, into which some of the species of the old genera 
are very often transferred. But, on the other hand, it is most 
true, that there are too many Botanical writers who, without due 
consideration, or a sufficient power of forming good general views, 
or from, an incomplete and superficial acquaintance with their 
subject, are, like this Mr. Spach, in the habit of introducing inno- 
vations which science indeed repudiates, but which ‘produce the 
greater public inconvenience, because it has usually happened that 
the writings of such persons are intended for popular purposes, and 
are directed to subjects of common occurrence. In the case I have 
now brought forward, the genus (Enothera, one of the most natural 
and indivisible in the whole science, is cut up into 12 pieces, to 
which, what with synonyms and blunders, at least 16 generic 
names. belong, and the adoption of these renders necessary some- 
thing more than 100. new specific names, which for one. genus is 
pretty well. Surely, I shall not be thought too harsh and severe, 
when I pronounce the writings in which such enormities are perpe- 
trated to be scientific nuisances. 
To these general observations upon Mr. Spach's performance, I 
