364 On the Doctrine of 



Such were Oken's notions in 1810; his more recent works 

 have not fallen in our way, but we believe they still remain 

 essentially the same. They seem to have been founded upon 

 Goethe's opinions respecting vegetable metamorphosis, and 

 to be, in fact, an attempt to apply the ideas of that most 

 original thinker to the purposes of systematical arrangement, 

 or rather, perhaps, to reduce the practical arrangements 

 already existing to his own peculiar method. 



It was naturally to be expected that a doctrine so abstruse, 

 and even unintelligible as this, would be slow in making pro- 

 gress in the world; accordingly we find, that for a long 

 time, it excited attention in no other countries than Germany 

 and Sweden. In the former, the well-known work upon 

 Fungi, by Nees von Esenbeck, may be cited as an example ; 

 and in the latter, the writings of Fries. The publication of 

 Nees, however, applies to a very limited portion of botany, 

 and differs materially in many respects from the principles 

 propounded by Oken, while the writings of Fries may be 

 said to be in some degree an adaptation of them. It is ex- 

 tremely difficult, however, to comprehend the manner in 

 which this author views the subject, and to ascertain whether 

 he adopts the theory of Oken, that the number four is the 

 necessary consequence of the predisposition of vegetation 

 to develope itself under four different forms, or whether he 

 merely determines that four is really a number into which the 

 lower orders of vegetation are distributable. 



A few years since, an English zoologist, of high reputa- 

 tion, during his investigation of the natural affinities of in- 

 sects, also arrived — without any acquaintance with the works 

 of the above-named authors — at the conclusion that there is 

 some certain number that prevails in nature ; but the number 

 upon which he fixed was five, not four. It is needless to 

 add, that this naturalist was Mr. W. S. Macleay. This 

 doctrine would, perhaps, in less skilful hands, have found but 

 few followers ; but, supported by the talent and practical 

 knowledge of its author, it has been adopted, either wholly 

 or in part, by a considerable number of the zoologists of 

 this kingdom. It seems to us that this supposed discovery 

 was not the consequence of any preconceived ideas, nor the 

 result of any opinion of the necessary existence of some de- 

 finite number like that of Oken, or perhaps of Fries ; but 

 that its claim to credit rests upon an ascertained certainty of 

 the existence of this ultimate fact, which is not to be ac- 

 counted for by any known law. If this view of the subject 

 be correct, the credibility of the system must depend, not so 



