486 CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 



and the fear of " allusion to living authors " seems to have converted his " literary 

 spear" into what he might esteem merely a peaceful pruning-hook. 



As Mr. Lees has not attempted to reply to my paper, I shall only remark on 

 what I deem his misapprehensions. He seems to have fallen into the error of 

 supposing that the advocates of the more extensive cultivation of the natural 

 system condemn the system of Linn^us per se ; but nothing can be more 

 erroneous ; they can appreciate, and admit in their writings, the simplicity and 

 adaptation of the Linnaean system ; they respect and admire its great and 

 philosophic inventor ; and are ready to allow that it has been a most powerful 

 means of advancing the pursuit of Botany. But this is not the question ; it is 

 not who has invented the artificial system ? or what has it done ? The inquiry 

 ought to be, is it adapted to the requirements of the advanced state of the science 

 of Botany at the present day ? This is the question, I think every one will 

 allow, to which attention ought to be directed, and which formed the basis of the 

 remarks I made in your Journal a month or two since (p. 175). 



No one was more perfectly aware of the deficiencies of his system than Lin- 

 naeus himself. He asserted, in his writings, that the great end and aim of every 

 botanist must be the arrangement of plants according to their natural relations 

 and affinities. He attempted this great work himself, in his Fragments of a 

 Natural System ; and there can be little doubt that sincere would be his regret, 

 if he could lift his head from the grave, to see men calling themselves his 

 disciples upholding his imperfect and artificial system as the acme of botanical 

 wisdom. 



Mr. Lees has repeated his assertion that the rejection of the Linnsean system 

 by botanists is " unphilosophical." If the endeavour to advance the knowledge 

 of the structure or affinities of plants ; to direct the mind to the laws that regulate 

 the distribution of plants over the globe ; to enlarge the sphere of botanical 

 knowledge by presenting to the student groups instead of individuals ; to exercise 

 the highest powers of observation by a minute attention to structural analogies, 

 be " unphilosophical," then I must admit that botanists, in insisting on the 

 adoption of the natural system and the rejection of the Linnsean, must plead 

 guilty to the charge of Mr. Lees. 



But those who admire and advocate the Linnsean should, in fairness, recollect 

 that it is not rejected because it has no merits, but because as a system it has 

 been superseded. The books written to explain that system are condemned 

 because the authors have failed in giving a correct view of the science of Botany. 

 If the system be found easier as a means of analysis, let it be adopted by those 

 who find it so ; but those who use it for this purpose, must submit to be told 

 that that is not the ultimate end of Botany ; and if they remain satisfied 

 with it, they must submit to the " implication of being trifling and superficial 



