180 THE JOUK>'AL OF ISOTANl' 



the Prodromus. In view of the interest attached to anything con- 

 nected with Brown and his Avork; it seems worth while to reprint the 

 review in full, and this 1 proceed to do. It appears in the number 

 for Jmie, 1810 (vol. xxix. pp. 516 sqq.), and must thus have been 

 written very shortly after the publication of the Prodromus early in 

 the year (see Journ. Bot. 1907, 217). It is curious that the very 

 full index to the Magazine contains no reference to the Prodro)nus, 

 although under '* Natural History " the titles of other books noticed 

 are given : it was not customary to index the names of authors. 

 Earlier in the same year a reference to Brown's work is made in 

 connection with a notice of the Botanical Macjazine for March in 

 which Lomatia silaifuUa is figured and described (t. 1272). S. F. Gray 

 writes : " This genus is made out of Dr. Smith's Emhothrium by 

 Mr. Brown, from whose paper on the Proteaceae the name and 

 characters are borrowed. Mr. Brown has the reputation, and we 

 beUeve very deservedlj^ of being one of the ablest botanists of the 

 present day. He is attached more to the system of Jussieu than of 

 LinnsBUS, for which we would rather applaud than condemn him " 

 [in Diet. Xat. Biogr. it is mentioned that Gray " was much fascinated 

 by the method of Jussieu "]. '• The greater difficulties which impede 

 the study of the natural athnities of plants, lead to a more philo- 

 sophical enquiry into vegetable physiology than the study of mere 

 artificial arrangement can ever do. At the same time we would 

 strenuousl}^ recommend to every student in botany, whether he means 

 to devote himself to the study of the natural orders as displa^'ed by 

 Jussieu, or of the more artificial arrangement of Linnseus, to make 

 himself thoroughly master of the Philosophia Botanica of the latter 

 author. He will there learn to express himself with a mathematical 

 precision, which he will never acquire from the writings of Jussieu, 

 who always seems to bewilder himself in exceptions to general rules, 

 by Nvhich means nothing is accurately defined. We are led to these 

 reflections by considering Mr. Brown's specific character of Lomatia 

 silaifolia. in which he says 'racemis divisis sim^jJicihus^'' by which 

 it appears that the racemes are either divided or simple, consequently 

 this circumstance affords no character that can enter into a definition, 

 and ought therefore to have been excluded. If the racemes are 

 usually divided, though not in all instances, in default of a more 

 precise character ' scepivs divisis,' though an imperfect, would have 

 been an admissible character ; but to speak of them as indiiferently 

 divided or simple, is to give no character at all " (p. 305). 



The title of the Prodromus stands at the head of the review, 

 which begins with a paragraph wherein the nature of a Prodromus 

 is discussed, and proceeds : — 



"Since our last report, the work has been published whose title 

 appears at the head of this ; and, though given under the modest 

 appellation of a Prodromus, we will venture to say, that in no book 

 since the publication of Jussieu's Genera Plantarum is there dis- 

 played such a fund of botanical knowledge as in this. Though sent 

 forth early as the harbinger of a greater work, to be expected here- 

 after from the same pen.no pains appear to have been spared to 



