Mr. Bicheno's Paper on Systems and Methods. 413 



" of their number being comparatively small, and their forms strongly 

 " marked." That is, in other words, the more widely the species are 

 asunder, and the more distant they are in form, the more easily are they 

 combined : just, perhaps, as a chain is more connected in proportion to 

 the number of links that are wanting ! 



In order to prove that you have not confined your studies to the vege- 

 table kingdom, you afterwards infer that the series of M. Cuvier in the 

 Regne .Animal is the natural system. This author indeed says as much 

 in his title-page, and you only think it necessary to criticize his groups of 

 Pachydermata and Passeres, and to prefer Jussieu's method of having for 

 such unknown things a miscellaneous group at the end of the work. As 

 neither Passeres nor Pachydermata are much more " unknown" than 

 other beings, it would perhaps save trouble, and give more satisfaction 

 to make one miscellaneous group of the whole of organized matter. 



You decide that " those persons, who imagine it to be necessary or ad- 

 " vantageous to find a place for every thing, appear to lose sight of the 

 ** chief object of the natural system, and to destroy its utility as an instru- 

 " ment of general reasoning. So then, the natural system, or plan by 

 which the Deity regulated the creation, is nothing more, in your opinion, 

 than an instrument of general reasoning towards attaining a particular 

 object. You are constantly alluding to this object, but what it is you do 

 not deign to state, nor do you explain how they who endeavour to find a 

 place for every thing destroy the utiHty of your instrument of general 

 reasoning. But the defect, without doubt, is on my side, and results 

 from my being one of those practical Naturalists who would attempt to 

 make accumulations to science without the aid of such abstract reasoning. 



Your reflections on the French school are, no doubt, intended, by their 

 severity, to give us all due warning. I much question, however, whether 

 the present perverse generation will not continue with the French to ob- 

 serve and arrange facts, dividing and subdividing them, rather than take 

 with you a free and lofty range by issuing forth " first principles of ar- 

 " rangement" founded on abstract reasoning. 



Although I am, as you are aware, no Botanist, I am glad to acquire 

 any information on plants, and I confess your assertion, that Parnassia 

 and Linncea are as distinct as any of the classes of vegetables, is quite 

 new to me. Still more am I interested by your observations, that " in 



