1823.] the natural Distribution of Insects and Fungi. ^^5 



into the natural system than has yet been made, we can scarcely 

 fail to be interested by a late work,* of which the perusal has 

 induced me to address this learned body. Although this work 

 is confined to a department of botany not very generally studied, 

 its author has evidently not been satisfied with the specific dis- 

 crimination of the imperfectly organized subjects of his research, 

 but has earnestly sought to discover the relations which they 

 bear to each other. Keeping this object steadily in view, 

 M. Fries has been able to give so connected and symmetrical 

 an outline of what he considers to be the natural distribution of 

 Fungi, as, at least, in my opinion, to merit the careful attention 

 of zoologists as well as botanists. It will readily be imagined 

 that, in saying this much, I do not, in the presence of so many 

 more able judges, presume to advance any positive opinion on 

 his merits as an observer. I confine myself entirely to that 

 theory or reasoning founded by M. Fries upon the general 

 result of observations, which it would be impossible to suppose 

 altogether incorrect, even if his reputation as a cryptogamist 

 were less than it really is. On this head, however, I have to 

 remark, that our author, although . undoubtedly an original 

 observer, is neither the first who has advanced this theory, nor 

 do Fungi compose the only part of organized matter in which 

 this sort of arrangement has been conceived to exist. So that 

 even with respect to his theory I may be a partial judge, and 

 may probably be more inclined to admit the validity of his con- 

 clusions, than will be deemed prudent by others who are altoge- 

 ther unprejudiced. 



M. Fries justly remarks, that the notion of the celebrated 

 Bonnet, as to the existence of a simple series or chain of natural 

 affinities, has been long exploded. The truth however is, that 

 the law of continuity has been quite misunderstood both by 

 Bonnet, and his opponents, so far as organized matter is con- 

 cerned: for Bonnet fancied that, if affinities v^ere continuous, 

 the series must therefore be simple f and some modern natural- 

 ists finding by experience the series not to be simple, therefore 

 supposed that affinities could not be continuous, but that nature 

 presents to the view a mass of unconnected groups, in which it 

 would be a waste of time and a loss of labour to search for any 

 general plan. It does not however appear that either of these 

 inferences has been very philosophically drawn ; for there is a 

 certain rule in natural history which originates solely in obser- 

 vation, and which, if properly followed up, will infallibly induce 

 us to grant to Bonnet the truth of his proposition, that affinities 

 are continuous, and yet to agree with his opponents, that the 

 series of natural beings is not simple. This rule is, that 

 Relations of Analog]/ must be carefully distinguished from Reia^ 



* Systema Mycologicum sistens Fungorum Ordines, Genera, Species, &c. quos ad 

 Normam Methodi Naturalis determinavit, disposuit atque descripsit Elias Fries, &c. 

 vol. i. Gryphiswaldiae, 1821. 



