from an ovate one? Or a tliin-sided pericarp a different type of 

 structure from a thicker-sided one? Mr. Spach says yes ; and upon 

 such differences is the larger part of his new genera (!!) proposed. 

 To me, however, and 1 shoukl hope to the greater number of Bota- 

 nists who have any idea what general views are, such opinions 

 appear contrary to common sense. If the example of writers like 

 Mr. Spach were to be followed, systematic Botany would be resolved 

 into its original elements : books would consist of mere masses of 

 species ; all power of analysis would be at an end, and the great 

 objects of classification would be annihilated, 



A proneness to disturb existing nomenclature is very commonly 

 alleged against modern Botanists in a mass, and is looked upon by 

 the Public, who are much inconvenienced by it, as a besetting sin 

 in modern Natural History. That there is a good deal of prejudice, 

 much misconception, and no small degree of ignorance in this po- 

 pular outcry, I or any Botanist could easily prove ; for it is impos- 

 sible that, in a science of observation, the ideas of any man should 

 remain fixed and immoveable, unless, indeed, in the case of those 

 gentlemen whom Science every now and then leaves so far behind 

 her, that, in the end, they are well nigh lost sight of altogether. 

 As new objects are discovered the necessity of new systematic combi- 

 nations becomes evident, and the ideas of Botanists change accord- 

 ingly, the visible result of which is occasional changes in nomen- 

 clature. Genera are thus materially affected from time to time, 

 and new species as they are discovered render the creation of new 

 genera necessary, into which some of the species of the old genera 

 are very often transferred. But, on the other hand, it is most 

 true, that there are too many Botanical writers who, without due 

 consideration, or a sufficient power of forming good general views, 

 or from an incomplete and superficial acquaintance with their 

 subject, are, like this Mr. Spach, in the habit of introducing inno- 

 vations which science indeed repudiates, but which produce the 

 greater public inconvenience, because it has usually happened that 

 the writings of such persons are intended for popular purposes, and 

 are directed to subjects of common occurrence. In the case I have 

 now brought forward, the genus CEnothera, one of the most natural 

 and indivisible in the whole science, is cut up into 12 pieces, to 

 which, what with synonyms and blunders, at least 16 generic 

 names belong, and the adoption of these renders necessary some- ' 

 thing more than 100 new specific names, which for one genus is 

 pretty well. Surely, I shall not be thought too harsh and severe, 

 when I pronounce the writings in which such enormities are perpe- 

 trated to be scientific nuisances. 



To these general observations upon Mr. Spach's performance, I 



