ft Rev. Mr Ramsay "*s Biographical Notice of 



The mere Linnaean nomenclature is a gigantic effort, and 

 of itself a wonderful instrument of order and perspicuity. No- 

 thing can be so repulsive, so vague, and wearisome, as the 

 nomenclature of the older botanists; and it excites our sur- 

 prise, how they could ever have had patience to work with in- 

 struments so clumsy and ineffective. In chemistry, where 

 there is not a tenth part of the individual objects to be specified 

 that there are in botany, the advantages of nomenclature have 

 been most remarkable in promoting facility of investigation and 

 perspicuity of description. The deficiencies of the ancients in 

 studying natural history are very striking, if we compare their 

 attempts in this department with their glorious productions in 

 poetry, eloquence, history, and morals. It is surprising what 

 little progress they made in their investigations into nature, 

 and it is the more remarkable, that they should not have made 

 more progress in botany, if we consider their extreme par- 

 tiality and almost reverence for flowers. * Unlike the artificial 

 wreaths which now mingle with the locks of youth and beauty, 

 or with which the wearers vainly think to supply the place of 

 both, their chaplets were the living and breathing flowers of na- 

 ture. The secret which explains the whole is their want of 

 system. That has been the great engine of advancement in 

 modern times ; for, as we understand the term, the ancients had 

 no system in their study of nature. The three great names 

 amongst the ancients as professed naturalists are, Theophrastus, 

 Dioscorides, and Pliny. But in none is there the smallest at- 

 tempt at what we now understand by classification. Theophras- 

 tus describes about 500 species, Dioscorides about 700. But 

 the contentions amongst commentators to ascertain the plants 

 alluded to are endless and irreconcilable. Pliny's work is 

 valuable, as collecting all that had been done by Greek authors 

 before his time ; but the descriptions are so vague, taken from 

 such uncertain marks, and from comparison with other plants 

 of which we know nothing, that, as a system of plants, it is per- 

 fectly useless. Thus botany went on till Lobel in 1570 adopt- 

 ed something like a system of classes. This was improved by 

 thetwoBauhines, who published their works, ihePinao) and Hist. 

 Plant. Univ. in 1623 and 1650. But the first really systeraa- 

 ♦ ** Po^a xui Qioici Ti^irm." Anacreon. 



