465 



deed it may be said, that if they were able to establish 

 good genera without them, and, after the example of their 

 leader, merely preferred the more obvious and distinct or- 

 gans, when sufficient for their purpose, their conduct was 

 justifiable. If generic principles be natural and certain, 

 it matters not on what parts of the fructification they are 

 founded; nor is the inflorescence, or even the herb or 

 root, rejected by sound philosophers, but because they 

 are found to lead only to unnatural and uncertain charac- 

 ters. It is therefore extremely to the honour of Linnaeus, 

 Gaertner, and Jussieu, that their conceptions of genera are 

 almost entirely the same. They meet in almost every 

 point, however different the paths by which they pursue 

 their inquiries. Their labours illustrate and confirm each 

 other. Even Tournefort, who conceived so well, on the 

 whole, the distinctions of genera, which he could but ill 

 define, receives new strength from their knowledge, which 

 does not overturn his imperfect performances, but improves 

 them. The accurate student of natural genera cannot 

 fail to perceive, that where Gaertner differs from Linnaeus, 

 which is but in a very few material instances, such as his 

 numerous subdivision of the genus Fumaria, and his dis- 

 tribution of the compound flowers, it arises from his too 

 intent and exclusive consideration of one part of the fruc- 

 tification, instead of an enlarged and comprehensive view 

 of the whole. In other words, he neglects the Linnaean 

 maxim, that " the genus should give the character, not the 

 character the genus." Such at least appears to us the 

 case in Fumaria. In the syngenesious family, being so 

 very natural in itself, the discrimination of natural genera 

 becomes in consequence so difficult, that Gaertner and 

 Linnaeus may well be excused if they do not entirely 

 agree, and they perhaps may both be satisfied with the 

 honour of having collected materials, and disposed them 

 in different points of view, for the use of some future sy- 

 stematic, who may decide between them. However exact 

 Gaertner may have been in discriminating the parts of 

 VOL. II. 2 H 



