KEFOE3I OF LINX^EUS. 399 



teacher on this subject, and which I think nifcy serve to show the 

 nature of the difficulty ; one by no means easily removed, and by the 

 general reader, not even readily comprehended with distinctness. 

 Giseke began by conceiving that an Order must have that attribute 

 from which its name is derived ; that the Umbellatce must have their 

 flower disposed in an umbel. The "mighty master" smiled, 18 and 

 told him not to look at names, but at nature. " But" (said the pupil) 

 " what is the use of the name, if it does not mean what it professes to 

 mean ?" " It is of small import" (replied Linnaeus) " what you call 

 the Order, if you take a proper series of plants and give it some name, 

 which is clearly understood to apply to the plants which you have 

 associated. In such cases as you refer to, I followed the logical rule, 

 of borrowing a name a potiori, from the principal member. Can you" 

 (he added) " give me the character of any single Order ?" Giseke. 

 " Surely, the character of the Umbellatce is, that they have an umbel ?" 

 Linnceus. " Good ; but there are plants which have an umbel, and 

 are not of the Umbellatce." G. " I remember. We must therefore 

 add, that they have two naked seeds." L. "Then, Echinophoro, 

 which has only one seed, and Eryngium, which has not an umbel, 

 will not be Umbellatce ; and yet they are of the Order." G. " I 

 would place Eryng'mm among the Aggregates? L. " No ; both are 

 beyond dispute Umbellatce. Eryngium has an involucrum, five 

 stamina, two pistils, &c. Try again for your Character." G. " I 

 would transfer such plants to the end of the Order, and make them 

 form the transition to the next Order. Eryngium would connect the 

 Umbellatce with the Aggregator L. "Ah! my good friend, the 

 Transition from Order to Order is one thing; the Character of an 

 Order is another. The Transitions I could indicate ; but a Character 

 of a Natural Order is impossible. I will not give my reasons for the 

 distribution of Natural Orders which I have published. You or some 

 other person, after twenty or after fifty .years, will discover them, and 

 see I was in the right." 



I have given a portion of this curious conversation in order to show 

 that the attempt to establish Natural Orders leads to convictions which 

 are out of the domain of the systematic grounds on which they profess 

 to proceed. I believe the real state of the case to be that the syste- 

 matist, in such instances, is guided by an unformed and undeveloped 

 apprehension of physiological functions. The ideas of the form, num- 



