62 Notices respecting New Books. 
ever depends upon language for its communication and exten- 
sion must have its bounds. 
To illustrate our subject, we refer the reader to Weihe 
and Nee’s Rubi Germanici, where he will find the descrip- 
tions carried to a minuteness which could only have been pro- 
duced by the most laborious investigation; and yet, after all 
(with the exception of a few well-known species), this minute 
detail does not enable the reader to make out the plant, even 
with the aid of well executed figures (which mode of re- 
presentation delineates some of the characters of natural ob- 
jects far better than words); and in most instances we gain no 
more information than this,—that the authors saw something 
different which they are unable to describe. The English 
have not been behind their neighbours the Germans in the 
scrutiny to which they have subjected some genera. Take 
for instance Juncus, Rosa, Myosotis, Saxifraga, with some 
scores of species in other genera. How many of the new ones 
are purely empirical! In many instances no doubt the distinc- 
tion is perceived, but it is so minute and fluctuating that it is 
impossible to reduce it to a specific character, and seldom can 
be intrusted even to general description. 
If any one wishes to acquire information on these obscure 
species, about which books will not assist him, he must not be 
content with a single lesson: he must have “line upon line, 
and precept upon precept.” We have ourselves attempted 
some of them under the most skilful preceptors; and regret 
that the dark hints and general terms which they are used to 
employ do not enable us to profit much by their instruction. 
Undoubtedly a rich vocabulary and ample command of illustra- 
tion will do something; but this only applies to the quantity. 
The point we are attempting to make is, that, after all, there 
is a limit to the communication of knowledge respecting the ob- 
jects of Natural History, created not only by the imperfect na- 
ture of language, but by the evanescent impression which cer- 
tain sensible characters leave upon the mind, thus furnishing 
materials for its own use, but which leave nothing behind that 
can be communicated to others. 
Let us not be misunderstood. We are not blaming modern 
botanists for the course they have been taking. The results are 
only such as all minute analysis is necessarily subject to. It 
is an inconvenience produced by the imperfection of the instru- 
ments of thought, and until they are improved it is in vain to 
blame the naturalist for the consequences. It is however a 
question for his consideration, whether he cannot remedy part 
of the evil by some mark, or name, or arrangement of his type, 
which he might adopt for such species as are capable of being 
~ distinctly 
