766 



at least not requiring such delicate microscopical investigation as the 

 natural system often requires. The seed is, in my opinion, altogether 

 too much used in the definitions of the natural school ; all the ana- 

 lyses of natural orders are founded on the structure of this organ, and 

 a student must be not only intimately acquainted with the variations 

 of the seed — in itself a difficult branch — but must also have the faci- 

 lities and knowledge necessary for extensive microscopic investigation, 

 almost before he can cross the external boundaries. Has every stu- 

 dent the apparatus necessary for this object ? And is not the neces- 

 sity for it likely to perplex and disgn.st the student ? 



3. The divisions are too much multiplied, and the differences be- 

 tween them often too nice. Many instances of this might be brought 

 forward, for which we have not space at present. At all events a too 

 great multiplicity of subordinate divisions must perplex the beginner, 

 and throw unnecessary difficulties in his way. 



These are some of the reasons which induce me to think that the 

 *' natural " system is not the one suited for initiating beginners into 

 the science ; and I shall now shortly mention a few of the principal 

 reasons why the Linnaean system appears to me preferable for this 

 object. 



No one attempts to deny the facility with which the Linnaean sys- 

 tem is acquired, and the great simplicity of its structure as compared 

 •with the other method ; and the only controversy between the advo- 

 cates of it and those of the natural scheme, is as to which is the^easi- 

 est and most profitable in practice. 



The points in which the Linnaean seems to me to surpass the'natural 

 method, are the following : — 



There is nothing superfluous in the characters of the main groups : 

 a distinct definition is established, and no diffuse details are allowed 

 to interfere with the precision of this definition. By reason of this 

 we at once come to the essential part of the character, and have no 

 trouble to hunt it out from among a number of common characters. 

 Again, these characters are drawn from parts of the plant very impor- 

 tant in themselves, not liable to vary, and easily and at once recog- 

 nized ; the primary divisions are comparatively few in number, and 

 for the most part, in the same ratio the difficulty of ascertaining any 

 plant we wish to know is diminished. And finally, a very great de- 

 cree of precision is unquestionably attained, by the employment of 

 diffei-ent characteristics to define different groups. 



The objections sometimes urged against the Linnaean system, ap- 

 pear to me strangely unfounded. On this head Dr. Lindley has the 



