

382 CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 



" exploded" system, which is " every where repudiated,'' has really, according to 

 Dr. Lindley's dictum, interfered with the public good ?* The student of the 

 natural system may affirm this if he pleases, but. I still contend that his constant 

 assumption and querulous repetition of the injurious tendency of the Linnsean 

 system is " unphilosophical," since it is no sound argument that because on 

 certain points the Linnsean system may be defective, therefore the natural system 

 must be its superior in all. Has the natural system no hope of success unless 

 it break ground by constantly impugning the Linnsean ? It is indeed passing 

 strange that while Dr. Lindley affirms that the latter is " repudiated every 

 where," and Mr. Lankester argues that it is "injurious," and has therefor 

 been " exploded," both these gentlemen should think and act as if they had a 

 living and not a dead Lion at their feet. This seems incomprehensible, unless 

 Mr. Lankester has let the Cat out when he hints that there is a " want of 

 demand" for the works on the natural system. Be this as it may, something 

 seems wrong ; and I am led to infer, that in practice the disciples of the natural 

 system find it rather unmanageable; for even Mr. Lankester appears to shrink 

 from " the hills and vales of our own island," and rather unbotanically — he will 

 excuse me for saying so — talks disparagingly of the " tiny weed that springs 

 beneath our feet." He seems to prefer the grander and more specious grovps 

 of the green-house and conservatory, where I agree with him he will find the 

 system he espouses of most service. 



If you like to print what I have written above — which is all the reply I feel 

 disposed to make — in the Correspondence or Criticism of The Naturalist, you 

 are at perfect liberty to do so. I have no time at present to enter into an exten- 

 sive review of the natural system ; and if I had, it would take up more room, 

 probably, than you could spare, and heartily tire the majority of your readers 

 before the inquiry was terminated. You see I say not a word against the 

 natural system — I leave it to stand or make its way on its own merits. I admire 

 the energy of its champions, and applaud their untiring researches into structure 

 and affinities ; but I must reprehend the tone of contempt in which they almost 

 invariably allude to those botanists who, like Dr. Johnston, in his interesting / 

 and excellent Flora of Berwick, still presume to hope that the Linnsean system 

 will yet continue something more than one of those nonentities of which all but 

 the semblance of its existence has passed away. I do not say that this lan- 

 guage is applied personally, but the implication is perpetually displayed — that 

 a system so trifling and superficial as we are thus, vi et armis, compelled to 

 suppose the Linnsean to be, can only be supported by trifling and superficial 

 observers. This mode of conducting the argument is uncourteous, and has the 



* See Syn. Brit. Flora, Preface, p. vii. 



