146 ORIGINAL ARTICLES. 



hesitation that I have admitted the specific identity of the Primrose and 

 the Cowslip, although several experimenters are stated to have raised 

 the one from the other. In all cases, proof by cultivation seems to re- 

 quire some confirmation by the observation of wild nature. 



With regard to genera and orders, I need not here repeat the 

 views I laid before the Linnean Society on a former occasion (" Journ. 

 Linn. Soc. Bot.," v. ii., p. 31), on the importance of maintaining, 

 for the convenience of language and study, large genera and or- 

 ders, in preference to breaking them up into small independent ones. 

 But the opinions I have on that and other occasions expressed, that 

 genera, as such, have no independent existence in nature, have been in 

 some measure misunderstood. Par be it from me to deny that groups 

 of species exist in nature, resembling each other more than they do the 

 species of any other group — that some of these groups, consisting of two, 

 three, or any number of species, are in nature distinguished from all 

 others by a number of well-marked characters, or that a single species 

 may be so isolated ; whilst others can only be separated by single or un- 

 important or variable characters — that these groups may be collected 

 into groups of a higher order, consisting in like manner of two, three, 

 or any number of smaller ones, similarly distinguished in nature by 

 more or less marked or important characters — that this synthetical 

 process, always following natural indications, may be carried on till 

 we arrive at the two or three great primary divisions of the vegetable 

 kingdom — and that in all the stages very great differences exist in 

 nature in the definiteness of the groups established, and in the relative 

 importance of the characters distinguishing them ; but that, generally 

 speaking, the characters of a large group are more important than those 

 which only distinguish its minor subordinates ; for on these principles, — 

 on a nice, appreciation of affinities (or calculation of resemblances and 

 differences), and of the importance of characters, as indicated in nature, — 

 depends the whole value of a natural classification. What I meant to 

 assert was, that nature has not assigned everywhere precise definite 

 limits to the groups she has indicated; nor has she fixed upon two stages 

 in the synthetical process more definite than any others, to be marked 

 out, the one for genera, the others for orders. These are often selected 

 and limited, arbitrarily, though necessarily, for the convenience of 

 system, language, and reference. The characters of plants are, indeed, 

 very different in importance ; but such differences are relative, not abso- 

 lute ; we cannot say that certain characters are of ordinal importance, 

 whilst certain others are only of tribual, generic, or sectional value. 

 Nor does any one character retain the same importance throughout the 

 vegetable kingdom. There is no test by which we can determine 

 whether two groups formed in different parts of the field of classifica- 

 tion are co-equal in value, or whether the one be of a higher grade 

 than the other. 



It becomes, therefore, necessary to consider what constitutes the 

 relative importance in characters, how far we can safely be guided by 





