HISTORY OF BOTANY. 77 



The works of Sir James Edward Smith on Botany are 

 very numerous and valuable. Among them may be mentioned 

 his ' Introduction to Botany,' Grammar of Botany,' ' English 

 Flora,' 'English Botan}^' illustrated by Sowerby ("flip- 

 pantly" as he complains, called 'Sowerby's Botany'), the 

 botanical articles in Kees' ' Cj'clopsedia,' and a translation 

 of Linneus' Lapland journal. 



Smith was not only a learned and excellent botanist, but 

 his writings are at the same time very interesting and 

 amusing ; they are not dry. Judging from his works one 

 would say that he was naturally quick of apprehension, a 

 close observer, and a man of great industry, but highly 

 critical and combative, and sometimes rather peppery in his 

 temper. Of course we might expect that Smith would be a 

 great upholder of Linnean rule, as he became in youth the 

 possessor of Linneus' treasures, and, as it were, continued 

 his work, so that he was apt to hold too cheap the principles 

 of a new and not yet fully accepted system for which he did 

 not see the necessit}^ It must not, therefore, be judged 

 that Sir J. E. Smith was not a good vegetable physiologist 

 or systematic botanist; his works prove the contrary. I am 

 inclined to think that we cannot yet with advantage put the 

 Linnean sexual system completely on one side.* 



John Lindley was an admirable botanist, who attempted 

 an extension of the natural system of De Candolle, which, 

 though it seems to possess great merit, has not taken much 

 hold on the botanical world so far. He was born at Cotton, 

 near Norwich, where his father had a nursery garden, and 

 was educated at the Norwich Grammar School. We may 

 say of this painstaking, accomplished, and industrious 

 botanist, that his life was a pretty even-running career, and 



'^' The Eev. Mr. Henslow's plant scliediiles include a statement of 

 tlie Linnean class and order, and tliey are generally approved. 



