Mr. Bichends Paper on Systems and Methods. 207 



You say "division and separation is the end of the Artifi- 

 cial System ;" and as I know not what particular artificial sy- 

 stem you allude to, for be it from me to say that you may not 

 possibly be in the right. But then you proceed as follows : — 

 " To establish agreements is the end of the Natural System." 

 Now that you who kindly offer to " prevent young Naturalists 

 li-om being prematurely embarrassed in this difficult subject," 

 should thus express yourself, surprises me not a little ; for I 

 had always understood that so far from the natural system 

 having for its object to establish agreements, its agreements 

 have remained established from the time of the creation. I 

 will not suppose that a writer "on systems and methods" 

 could have forgotten to make himself master of the very key- 

 stone of his subject, and that he can still remain ignorant of 

 the Natural System itself being the end or object at which we 

 aim, and not an instrument like any artificial system to arrive 

 at an end. It is no doubt for the purpose of displaying your 

 powers of abstract reasoning that you advance such positions 

 as the above, or that you state that the Artificial System is a 

 descending series, and the Natural System an ascending one. 

 Nay, what is more extraordinary than all, you seem in an- 

 other place to imagine, that there are more natural systems 

 than one, and that a variety of them have been already attain- 

 ed by the Linnean Society; for you advise us to ^Hake any 

 natural system, and see if this," &c. Pray let me know where 

 I shall find one of them, and I shall be content. It excites 

 your surprise that " many modern Naturalists have not adopt- 

 ed your truths," but you ought to have recollected that the 

 many are not so far advanced as yourself. They have been 

 looking for one natural system, only one, and confined as their 

 aim is, they have not as yet been able to attain it. 



" It is the prevalent error of modern Naturalists to attempt 

 to generalize where they ought to analyse, while their ar- 

 rangements called natural, are almost all framed with a view 

 to distinguish." Metaphysically, perhaps, this passage is very 

 clear ; but what, in the name of plain sense, is the meaning of 

 it? Modern Naturalists err in refraining to analyse, and also 

 err, inasmuch as they are all busy distinguishing ! Perhaps, 

 however, after all, there is consistency in this paradox; for we 

 have seen that you censure as well those who subdivide the 

 Linnean genera as those who combine them into larger 

 groupes. It was possible, nevertheless, for you to have ex- 

 pressed yourself with greater clearness, if this be really the 

 meaning of so contradictory and curious a sentence. 



Vou next draw "a diagnosis" between M.M. Hrown and 

 Decandolle, which, because perhaps 1 am no Botanist, I can- 

 not 



