891 



the examination necessary for the knowing the genus and species of 

 a plant, after you have got at its class and order by the Linnoean sys- 

 tem, gives as great an .amount of information concerning the plant 

 itself, as if this end were attained by the natural system, with this dif- 

 ference, that the information is far more easily acquired and the pro- 

 cess not nearly so complicated." 



Here I submit that Mr. Edmonston labours under a very grave 

 error, from his want of appreciation of the objects of the natural sys- 

 tem. It is true that the studeut may gain an equal knowledge of the 

 plant itself as by the natural system ; but when he has obtained that 

 knowledge, what has he discovered of the relations of the plant to 

 other plants, farther than the generic group. When he rises above 

 that group, and comes to the ordei'S and classes, what does he find 

 but "combinations of disjointed things" — genera associated that dis- 

 agree in every particular, excepting that they have the same number 

 or arrangement of stamina and pistils, and even then, there are nume- 

 rous exceptions to these numbers and arrangements ! ! If we consider 

 plants in their affinities or properties, we shall find that the Linnaean 

 groups are, for the most part, forced and unnatural, while the reverse 

 is usually the case with the natural orders. In saying this, I do not 

 mean to deny that there are numerous exceptions to the natural sys- 

 tem, but as that system can never be perfect until the whole vegetable 

 kingdom is known, these exceptions must still exist while man is less 

 than omniscient ! 



I will conclude with, T fear, a rather long extract from Swainson's 

 admirable treatise ' On the Geography and Classification of Animals,' 

 which sets forth, in better language and more forcible manner than I 

 am able to em])loy, the differences and uses of the two systems ; at 

 the same time remarking that Linnaeus himself could not rest content- 

 ed with his own admirable artificial scheme, but sketched out a plan 

 for a natural one ! 



" What, then, is the difference between an artificial and a natural system ? The 

 first is for the ready discrimination of species; the latter for the elucidation of those 

 resemblances which such species bear to others in all their varied and comjilex rela- 

 tions. The one stops where the other begins. We mate use of an artificial system to 

 become acquainted with the name of a species ; and to learn all that has been written 

 on its peculiar structure. We turn to the natural system, to know the probable station 

 of this species in the scale of being, the affinities it possesses to others, and the ana- 

 logies by which it is related and represented. Hence the perfection, as we have fre- 

 quently intimated, consists in the clearness and precision of its subdivisions, and the 

 facilities which it affords to determine the name of the object we are in scarcli of. In 

 this respect a good artificial system is to be judged by the same rules as those by which 



