887 



stractions or inductions. We cannot then say of any of our arrange- 

 ments of plants, that they are natural in the sense that they have been 

 created by Nature ; but that they are natural in the sense that they 

 bring together those plants that have the strongest analogies. 



Now this brings me to the second proposition, " that this scheme 

 (or plan) of Nature's is the same as one or other of the natural sys- 

 tems." Supposing it has been proved above that Nature has followed 

 a plan in the creation of plants, and that consequently plants have 

 such analogies to each other as to enable us to arrange them in spe- 

 cies, genera, orders and classes ; it is evident that that system will 

 approach nearest to the plan of Nature, which exhibits the greatest 

 number of analogies in its construction, and that brings together in 

 its various groups those plants that bear the greatest resemblance to 

 each other. Your correspondent asks whether any one of the natural 

 systems corresponds or is identical with the scheme of Nature } He 

 will perhaps think himself triumphant when I answer. No. But his 

 triumph will be short when I in return ask him the following ques- 

 tions. Is our knowledge of Nature perfect, and are the general the- 

 ories of any one of the natural sciences incapable of change } Does 

 not the history of each science (save the Mathematical) show a series 

 of changes in its general propositions ? Has not all Natural Philoso- 

 phy undergone great changes, and is it impossible that it should here- 

 after undergo still greater changes ? If then all sciences have been 

 and still are liable to change ; why should not our science undergo 

 such changes ? But I shall be glad to be informed what botanists 

 have considered any form of the natural system as a settled and per- 

 fect system ; and who does not expect changes in system contempo- 

 raneous with the increase of our knowledge of the vegetable world .? 

 A botanist who thinks that all has been done, that the science is per- 

 fect, and should undergo no further alterations, I should think a fit 

 inmate for a lunatic asylum ! 



The quotation from Dr. Lindley's 'Key to Botany' is not suffi- 

 ciently ample; Mr. Edmonston should have added the next paragraph, 

 when it would read thus : — " What we call the characters of plants 

 are merely the signs by which we judge of affinity, and all the groups 

 into which plants are thrown, are in one sense artificial, inasmuch as 

 Nature recognizes no such groups. Nevertheless, consisting in all 

 cases of species very closely allied to each other, they are in another 

 sense natural." The addition of the last sentence very much alters 

 our notion of Dr. Lindley's expression ; for now he implies that Na- 

 ture has not indeed created species, orders, genera, or other groujss as 

 such ; but has imprinted such characters and affinities on plants, as 



