963 



Thirdly. — I am sorry to see the term "fashionable " so constantly 

 applied by the advocates of the Linnaean school to those who follow 

 what they consider a better system, as a term of reproach and ridicule. 

 Fashion implies change, and is used in that sense by the opponents 

 of the natural system ; referring, I suppose, to the changes that sys- 

 tem has undergone : but surely it must be allowed that progression 

 towards perfection is better than to remain in the same immoveable 

 unimprovable state. The method of Linnaeus itself was a progressive 

 change on the older and more imperfect systems that preceded it, as, 

 I think, the system of Jussieu, DeCandolle &c., is a progression from 

 the more imperfect system of Linnaeus. Let us expect, then, that in 

 proportion as our knowledge of Nature increases, changes of system 

 must follow as necessary and beneficial results. 



As to Nature's working by " carpenter's rule," I can only remark 

 that did not Nature work by rule, the earth would be a chaotic mass; 

 those nice dependencies of beings and substances on each other, and 

 the order which even a superficial study of natural objects positively 

 obtrudes upon us, would neither be discoverable, nor indeed would 

 exist. Any one who observes the variations by which allied plants 

 placed under different species approach each other, will see that there 

 must be a type or model on which the species must be based ; the 

 general derived fi'om the individual. 



If my interpretation of the term species be correct, it will follow 

 that man does make species, as well as genera and other groups, and 

 consequently that the expression " exalting varieties to the rank of 

 species " &c., may be correctly used. 



Whoever will compare the various catalogues of British plants, for 

 example, will see that what were formerly termed species are either 

 divided into two or more modern species, or, on the other hand, de- 

 pressed to the rank of varieties ! And how are these divisions, these 

 exaltations and depressions, brought about ? By observation of their 

 rej)roduction by seed ? No : but by the variation of the value of dif- 

 ferent characters in the minds of different botanists ! What is the 

 value of the term species if it be liable to such mutations ? 



I have now, Sir, expressed, as clearly as I am able, my notions on 

 the subjects contained in the letters of Mr. Edmonston and Mr. Fors- 

 ter. I shall hail with pleasure the proof that they are incorrect, but 

 at the same time 1 must express my gratification that while Mr. Fors- 

 ter has attacked my opinions on a few minor points, he has left un- 

 touched the great question of the comparative beauty and utility of 

 the two rival systems. 



