the Brittjh Fuel, ivith particular Defer ipt ions of each Species, $j 



fects will not be imputed to any promptitude in us to find fault, 

 but to a defire to fave the trouble, and prevent the errors, of the 

 young botanift, who might otherwife be milled by placing too im- 

 plicit a confidence in an author of fo highly eftabliihed a reputa- 

 tion. 



We need not dwell long upon the labours of the older botanifts. 

 Morifon, in Hift. Oxon. v. iii. p. 644, gives a very elegant account of 

 his ideas of the manner in which the feveral plants are propagated. 

 fcut there are very few descriptions added to his nomenclature: 

 whence we are often obliged to have recourfe to his fynonyms to 

 afcertain his meaning ; a circumftance at all times, unlefs a figure 

 accompany it, extremely precarious. He gives no generic character* 

 and his orders are quite void of precife determination. He has collect- 

 ed a great many fpecies, and his figures are in general very cxpreffive. 



Nothing can well be more vague than Mr. Ray's generic charac- 

 ter of Fucus. It would apply in fome mealure to any thing or 

 every thing fubmarine. He very often gives very (hiking defcrip- 

 tions — but his laft divifion, Foliisvel Ieviter comprejjis vel teretibus, is too 

 loofely given. It muft neverthelefs be allowed, that his divisions are 

 the mod fatisfaclory except thofe of Mr. Hudfon. 



Linnaeus, in his Sp.Pl. publiihed at Vienna 1764, arranged the 

 Fuel under the following divifions : 



ta- 7 , • f frondefcentes 

 \ caulejcenies 



„ B f folii's difiincih 



2. Ramon \ J r j J \7i 



J \Jronde unita 



3. Frudlificationibus non veficariis* 



There cannot be a more faulty paffage pointed out in the whole 



circle 



