Arrangements of Plants. 75 
which he denominates genera affinia ; besides which, he is obliged 
to add at the end of his work a long appendix of plants whose 
proper stations he has not been able to ascertain; not from the 
want of opportunity for investigation, for many of the plants were 
obvious ; but because they ei her fall under different classes with 
equal claims, or are not reducible to any class whatever. Asa 
nomenclature this defect is fatal ; for, unless the inquirer can be 
confidently assured that some part of the system will afford him 
the information he requires, he is disheartened in his efforts, and 
relinquishes his search in disgust. 
Here, then, the comparison between these rival systems neces- 
arily terminates ; and whatever may be the merits of Jüssieu as 
a botanist, it is sufficiently clear that they are not exemplified in 
the superiority of his arrangement as a nomenclature of the vege- 
table kingdom. In fact, the inconveniencies arising in such 
arrangement from its primary distinctions being founded on the 
mode of germination, from the want of a succinct and explicit 
division of the classes into orders and sections, and particularly 
from the unfortunate circumstance of a considerable portion of 
vegetables not being included in any part of the system, compel 
us to conclude that, as a nomenclature and series of plants, it is 
greatly inferior to that of Linnzus ; and that, however excellent 
it may be in some respects, it will never supplant i in general use 
"me ddag established work. 21H 
T IM. That the work of Jussieu, considered as an illustration of 
the natural affinities of plants, possesses great and intrinsic merit, 
we may however readily admit; but that the study of plants in 
their natural orders can supply the want of an artificial system, 
may safely be denied. In fact, these two methods are as distinct 
in their objects as they are in their means, and should never be 
L3 confounded 
