'■' ' 'the late Sir J. E. Smith. '" v JT 7* 



tic form given to botany was by Ray, the great English bota- 

 nist, the second edition of whose Synopsis^ his great work, was 

 published in 1677, and is strictly speaking a systematic work, 

 having an arrangement into classes, genera, and species, though 

 in this respect still very imperfect. Ray was unquestionably a 

 great naturalist, and he who would depreciate his character de- 

 tracts from the glory of his country, who may well be proud of 

 him, both as a man and a naturalist. Amongst the fathers of 

 natural history, he ranks only second to the illustrious Swede, and 

 such was the universal opinion expressed at the dinner given 

 lately in London, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his 

 birth, at which many of our most eminent naturalists bore tes- 

 timony to his genius and his merit. There could not have been 

 a more enthusiastic student of nature, a more acute observer, or 

 one more learned in all that had been done before his time, and 

 yet his classification is liable to radical objections. As formed from 

 his own resources and observations it is wonderful, but quite ineffi- 

 cient for the accuracy necessary in botanical description, and 

 quite unable to keep pace with the immense discoveries which 

 were made immediately after his time. The classes are often 

 formed upon such vague distinctions as Trees and Shrubs ; the 

 genera formed upon such characters as shape of leaf, colour, 

 taste, smell, and even size. The nomenclature is of itself suf- 

 ficient to prevent the study assuming that accurate and attrac- 

 tive form which so eminently distinguishes modern botany. 

 The expression of a plant by two words, its generic and speci- 

 fic appellation, though not perhaps to be considered as an ac- 

 tual discovery of Linngeus, still was first adopted by him as a 

 canon of botanical science, and without which botany must 

 have been prevented from assuming any rank amongst the exact 

 sciences. It seems incredible to a young botanist, accustomed 

 to the concise precision of this nomenclature, to learn that a 

 pupil of Ray, when he mentioned a plant, was obliged to repeat 

 many words, and often a line and half of Latin description. 

 Thus the Lolium perenne of Linnoeus is named in Ray : " Gra- 

 men loliaceum, angustiore folio et spica ;" in which there is no 

 generic distinction, as Gramen applies to all his grasses ; and the 

 Linnaean Festtica elatiorin Ray stands thus : " Gramen arundina- 



