208 Mr. W. S. MacLeay's Exanmiation of 



not pretend altogether to unclerstantl ; for the latter is blamed 

 for " attempting fresh combinations at every stage," and the 

 former praised " as his object is chiefly synthesis." I am the 

 more sorry for my ignorance of the botanical difference be- 

 tween combination and synthesis, not merely because I have 

 myself the highest opinion of Mr. Brown's science, but because 

 I of course must feel interest in any eulogy of our friend by 

 those who, as Botanists, must be best able to judge of his merits. 



I have already hinted, that your distinction between the 

 natural and an artificial system, making the latter a descending 

 series, and the former an ascending one, could have only been 

 maintained by you from love of paradox ; but as you return 

 to this distinction, and may therefore possibly believe it cor- 

 rect, I shall explain mj^self more fully. Both kinds of system 

 afford ascending and descending series. It is clear, for in- 

 stance, that the Linnean sexual system in Botany was in the 

 first case founded as much on the examination of individuals 

 as if it had been the natural system. In studying, therefore, 

 any system, whether natural or artificial, we must always begin 

 with individuals, and look upwards, discovering first the spe- 

 cies, next the genus, and so on. It is true, indeed, that the 

 genus may have been a more comprehensive groupe with early 

 Naturalists than with modern : but however this may be, the 

 above is the general process of investigation. Nay, it so hap- 

 pens, that this system of combining has hitherto been pursued 

 principally in various artificial systems, although the searchers 

 after the natural system have no reluctance to apply the know- 

 ledge of natural groupes, that happens sometimes to be thus 

 acquired, to their own more particular object. In the same 

 way the natural system is not essentially an ascending series, 

 for it is equally true, whether it ascends or descends ; being 

 equally the plan of the Deity, however we may please to study 

 it, whether by analysis or synthesis. 



Next you say, " If we find a large genus agreeing in some 

 well-marked characters of structure, form, station, and pro- 

 perties, it appears contrary to the end proposed by the natural 

 system to divide and subdivide the species into small groups, 

 and to give each of these the same value as is now possessed 

 by the whole. This is frittering away charactei's which are 

 essential to the use of a genus, and destroying our power 

 over it when we wish to generalize." On this passage I would 

 first remark, for the third time, that the natural system pro- 

 poses no end, but is itself the end proposed ; next I would 

 say, that no one, except yourself, ever indulged the idea of 

 giving the same value to a part as to the whole ; that neither 

 you nor I can possibly know a j^riori what characters are es- 

 sential 



