Mr. R. B. Hinds on Geographic Botany. 97 



in pointing out tlie native country of any quadruped, bird, or 

 insect, with distinctive general characters. With plants it is the 

 same ; only a little closer observation is required, since they do 

 not fix themselves so firmly in the mind as the animal kingdom. 

 Still a well-informed person will form a correct judgement of the 

 part of the globe whence many of the plants in a collection of 

 exotics may have been obtained; he will easily separate the 

 plants of the tropics from those of colder regions, and not un- 

 likely will discriminate between the plants of different continents 

 in the same parallels. The varieties which are thus so generally 

 evident become multiplied in the eyes of a botanist after a little 

 examination, and he can trace certain points of distinction and 

 resemblance, which render them highly interesting and often 

 important to our subject. 



In the vegetable kingdom, the peculiar organization which 

 gives rise to this diversity of appearance in different regions 

 does not originate in those characters which are taken for the 

 purposes of classification, but is due to others of a more general 

 kind, and which we shall attempt to explain. It depends also on 

 a more extensive view of the flora, influenced by the method of 

 grouping, the general outlines of individuals, and their shades of 

 colour. The impressions conveyed by these constitute what has 

 been termed the physiognomy of vegetation ; expressive of its 

 powers of giving a bias to a scene or landscape. It must be con- 

 fessed, that though the eye catches any peculiarities, and can 

 convey to the mind a correct impression of the same, it is often 

 extremely difficult to express them in language, and in fact they 

 are so deficient of positive characters, that any words we have 

 cannot express them. Who is there that would pretend to de- 

 scribe in language the exact grouping of a mass of clouds, or give 

 a shape to the waves of the ocean, or to the foam they dash from 

 their crests ? The painter however can do this ; he can closely 

 represent the clouds and waves, whilst he also can express on 

 canvas the physiognomy of a landscape. If we turn to the rural 

 scenes of our best artists, what delight do they convey from their 

 correctness, and from portraying to us so exactly what we may 

 every day see in nature ! How faithful are the landscapes of 

 Titian and Claude Lorraine, and how happily have they caught 

 and expressed the outlines and groupings of vegetation ! Not 

 merely have artists succeeded in representing a particular land- 

 scape, but certain species of trees and shrubs with such correctness, 

 that they are evident on the slightest inspection. But it must 

 be acknowledged, that while the artist does seize many of these 

 features with his brush, which the naturalist is unable to describe 

 with his pen, the former is enabled Jto select his subjects from the 



