38 ROBERT MORISON AND JOHN RAY 



Pomiferae : Citrus. 



Bacciferae, Monopyrenae : Viscum, Daphne, Rhamnus 



sp. 

 Polypyrenae : e.g. Vitis, Rubus, Ligustrum, 



Berberis, &c. 

 Genus iii. Fructu sicco, non Siliquosae : e.g. Acer, Fraxinus, Tilia, 



Ulmus, Rhus, Syringa. 

 iv. Siliquosae Flore non papilionaceo : Cassia, Mimosa, Cera- 



tonia, Nerium, &c. 



v. Siliquosae Flore papilionaceo : papilionaceous plants. 

 vi. Anomalae: Ficus. 



Foliis Arundinaceis : Monocotyledons ; Palmaceae, Dracaena, Bam- 



busa. 



There can be no doubt that Ray was more fortunate than 

 Morison in the impression that he produced upon contemporary 

 botanists and upon those who immediately succeeded them. 

 This, for instance, is what Tournefort said of him (Siemens de 

 Botanique, 1694, p. 19) : " Monsieur Ray sans faire tant de bruit 

 a beaucoup mieux reussi que Morison. Sa modes tie est Ion able, et 

 r Histoire des Plantes qttil nous a donnee est une Bibliotheque 

 Botanique, dans laquelle on trouve non settlement tout ce que les 

 auteurs ont dit de meilleur sur chaque plante; mats encore les 

 caracteres des genres y sont designer d'une maniere assez com- 

 mode..." In the Classes Plantanun (1738) Linnaeus gave a 

 somewhat formal approval of Ray's work : " Magna sunt opera 

 J. Raji in Scientia Botanica, qui constantia summa, omnia, quae 

 beneficio seculi innotuerant de plantis, manu plus quam ferrea 

 descripsitr But perhaps a more genuine opinion is that ex- 

 pressed by Linnaeus in the letter to Haller from which his 

 estimate of Morison has already been quoted (see p. 27): "You 

 are here justly aware, that when the System of Ray was spoken 

 of as perfectly natural, all botanists must have been blind, unless, 

 like Dillenius, they hoped for a professorship, or were compelled, 

 by the authority of the English, to give to Ray supreme honours. 

 What was he ? Undoubtedly an indefatigable man in collecting, 

 describing, etc. ; but in the knowledge of generic principles, less 

 than nothing, and altogether deficient in the examination of 

 flowers. I beg of you to compare the first edition of his 

 Methodus with the second and third, where he has learned to 

 take everything from Tournefort. I know not why the dis- 



