Mr. Bichends Paper on Systems and Methods. 201 



above, untouched, until you shall have, at some future period, 

 more clearly expressed it. 



You say that you are not yourself opposed to any particular 

 system, but only intend in your Paper to lay down some 

 '■^ Jirst principles of arrangement" to serve as a test by which 

 Naturalists may try all systems. Let us, however, examine 

 calmly these " first principles" themselves, before we apply 

 them ; for the test of a system ought surely to be proved good 

 and true before we can allow it to regulate either our assent 

 or dissent. , 



In the first place, you propose to treat the subject metaphy- 

 sically, as a Locke, not as a Linnaeus. Now to this proposal 

 no Naturalist ought to object, provided you found your me- 

 taphysical arguments, and " abstract reasoning," on some lit- 

 tle observation of Nature, and provided you illustrate your 

 various positions by facts drawn from Natural History. How 

 far your Paper is strictly logical or metaphysical, I will not 

 now discuss ; but I will venture to say that your abstract rea- 

 soning would have carried much more weight with it, had you 

 seasoned it a little more with illustrations drawn from ob- 

 served facts. 



You are pleased, upon the authority of Mr. Roscoe and Sir 

 J. Smith, which you very naturally esteem quite conclusive, 

 to state to those who break up the old genera into many new 

 ones, " that the artificial and natural systems aim at two very 

 distinct objects." Although in these degenerate days it is not 

 very usual to talk of the natural system as aiming at an object, 

 I imagine that I understand what you would say, in which 

 case the information you would impart is not very original 

 either from your botanical authorities or yourself; nor am I 

 aware exactly for whom you are charitable enough to intend 

 it, as I know of no Naturalist who does break up, at least in 

 your sense of the words, the old orders and genera when he 

 deems them good. I say iii your se7ise of the roords, for I 

 must suppose you mean your advice for those who destroy or 

 take no notice of the ancient groupes. You cannot surely, 

 with your talents for abstract reasoning, mean to attack those 

 who not merely preserve them, but by subdivision make us 

 by the consetjuent analysis better acquainted with their inter- 

 nal construction. A pers(>n who retains the groupes of the 

 older Naturalists, and moreover shows us how these may be 

 resolved again into others, evidently possesses a greater por- 

 tion of that acquaintance with individual forms upon which 

 our knowledge of the natural system must, as even you your- 

 self allow, eventually be grounded, i carmot believe that you, 

 wlio profess to understand the exact portion of merit tliat be- 



N. S. Vol. G. No. 33. S(pf. 1829. 2 D longs 



