BOTANICON SINICUM. 115 
resembling the so called natural systems by which our naturalists 
are guided. ‘These ingenious systems answer their purposes only 
ina general way. In many instances we do not find in living 
nature precisely defined and exactly divided Orders, Genera, and 
Species; but we observe more frequently gradual transitions by 
more or Jess numerous intermediaries (which often have become — 
extinct now) from one form to another. It is even not possible 
to.separate precisely the vegetable from the animal kingdom. 
These facts render the application of our systems of classification 
to natural objects often difficult. 
When Linneus first attempted to group plants in a rational 
way, according to certain characters they possessed in common, 
and when he first proposed the generic and specific appellations, 
one of his principal objects in view was apparently to establish a 
Teasonable rule for nomenclature. His ingenious plan was un- 
animously adopted, but it is to be regretted that the principles 
now followed in laying down the limits of genera and species 
widely diverve from the good sense displayed in this regard by 
old Linneus. A system of classification answering all purposes 
of precise distinction is a desideratum which will never be attained. 
Although it seems to be of primary importance to have a definite 
idea of what is to be understood by Genus, Species, and Variety, 
these terms have never been satisfactorily explained, and they have 
really not a very exact meaning. This question is entirely left to 
the judgment of the particular authors; and every botanist has his 
own opinion on the matter and follows generally a system of his 
own. Thus we find in systematic botany the greatest incongtui- 
ties in the matter of distinctive characters required to justify the 
establishing of a new genus or species. 
From a practical point of view, and for the sake of clearness, it 
Seems to me more reasonable that the range of genus and species 
should be less limited, i. e. to admit less genera and more species ; 
and on the other hand, less species and more varieties. If such 
8 rule were adopted, the botanical names would more clearly in- 
dicate the affinities of plants than the multitude of new generic 
and specific appellations, separated from the names of the original 
8enus and species—separations which ure often founded on cha- i 
Tacteristies of little value. Take the genus Begonia of Linnwus - 
