the Britijh Fuci, with particular Befcripuons of each Species. 87 



fcfts will not be imputed to any promptitude in us to find fault, 

 but to a defire to fave the trouble, and prevent the errors, of the 

 young botanift, who might otherwifc be mifled by placing too im- 

 plicit a confidence in an author of fo highly eftablilhed a reputa- 

 tion. 



We need not dwell long upon the labours of the older botanifts. 

 Morifon, in Hiji. Oxon. v. iii. p, 644, gives a very elegant account of 

 his ideas of the manner in which the feveral plants are propagated. 

 But there are very few defcriptions added to his nomenclature : 

 whence wc are often obhged to have recouife to his fynonyms to 

 afcertain his meaning ; a circumftance at all times, unlefs a figure 

 accompany it, extremely precarious. He gives no generic charader, 

 and his orders are quite void of precife determination. He has colled- 

 ed a great many fpecies, and his figures are in general very expreflive. 



Nothing can well be more vague than Mr. Ray's generic charac- 

 ter oi Fucus. It would apply in fome meafure to any thing or 

 every thing fubmarine. He very often gives very ftriking defcrip- 

 tions — but his laft divifion, Foliisvel kviter comprejjlsvel terelibtis, is too 

 loofely given. It muft neverthelefs be allowed, that his divifions are 

 the moft fatisfadlory except thofe of Mr. Hudfon. 



Linnaeus, in his Sp.Pl, publillied at Vienna 1764, arranged the 

 Fuci under the following divifions : 



1. Dichofomlf'°fff''"'" 



I cauie/ce fifes 



2. Ramo/i [ff^fpfl^Js 



Xjronde unita 



3. Fru£liJicationibus non vejicariis. 



There cannot be a more faulty pafTago pointed out in the whole 



circle 



