Linnean System of Plants, 229 



known to those early writers must have been very small ; and 

 even that small number were very imperfectly understood. 

 They had not, as we now have, a language by which every 

 botanist is clearly intelh'gible to another ; the description of 

 one plant was very frequently applicable to many others ; and, 

 at this distance of time, it is, in many instances, impossible to 

 ascertain what were the plants intended. Hence have arisen 

 conjectures without end, upon questions which can never be 

 determined. Thus, the ancient hyacinth is, by some, sup- 

 posed to have been the Eastern flower which now bears 

 that name ; by others, on account of certain figures on the 

 petals, it is believed to have been what we now term the 

 martagon lily ; and many think it was the larkspur. The 

 mallow, so important as an esculent vegetable, and mentioned 

 as such by Horace, and in the Old Testament, is now un- 

 known. Most probably we have the plant, but are unable 

 positively to identify it ; and it is the same with many others. 



It was not till towards the end of the sixteenth century, 

 that botany was reduced to any sort of system. The first 

 systematic arrangement of vegetables was published by Caesal- 

 pinus, an Italian physician, in the year 1583. Many others 

 succeeded, which, however ingenious, were of little public 

 utility, because no one was generally adopted ; until the ad- 

 mirable system of Linnaeus, towards the middle of the 

 eighteenth century, prevailed over all others, and was univer- 

 sally approved and followed. 



There is at present, however, a sort of rivalry between the 

 system of Linnaeus and what is termed the natural method of 

 Jussieu. The heart-burnings of rivalry and party spirit should 

 not be suffered to approach the — may we say — amiable 

 science of botany. Linnaeus himself was earnest for a natural 

 arrangement, and was well aware of its importance. He left 

 what he called a fragment of a natural method, which he re- 

 commended succeeding botanists to perfect; not as a suc- 

 cessor, but as a companion, to his own beautiful system. It 

 has been well observed by Mr. Bicheno, that " the two 

 great masters of botanical science propose different ends, 

 and ought not to be regarded as rivals." The artificial sys- 

 tem of Linnaeus enables us to become acquainted with indivi- 

 duals; and, for this purpose, the object is to divide and to 

 define : the natural method of Jussieu looks to their connec- 

 tions and affinities; consequendy its object is diametrically 

 opposite to the former, and its business is combination. For 

 a precise knowledge of the different species of plants, the sys- 

 tem of Linnaeus is unrivalled ; and it is only by an accurate 

 knowledge of the species, that we can avail ourselves of their 



