982 



knowledge of the boundless and wondrous variety of vegetable life and 

 structure. The " artificial " will not quarrel with the " natural " be- 

 cause it is not and never can be the System of Nature; and the natu- 

 ral will tolerate some sacrifices of evident affinity made to precision 

 and clearness of definition by the artificial. Let botanists also occu- 

 py themselves in endeavouring to improve the Linnsean system, so as 

 to adapt it to our more extended knowledge, and then 1 have no he- 

 sitation in sajdng that it will never be laid on the shelf, but will be 

 immortal as the science, or as the memorj'^ of the giant mind that 



fi-amed it. 



I remain. Sir, 



Your obedient Servant, 



Thomas Edmonston, jun. 

 To the Editor of ' The Phytologist.' 



p g_ — Since the above remarks were penned, I have received the 

 April and May numbers of ' The Phytologist,' in which I am glad to 

 find so able and justly distinguished a supporter as Mr. Forster, as it 

 proves that even among those who hold a high rank as botanists, there 

 are still some who do not consider it imperative on them to " follow 

 the fashion" (as I must still beg leave to call the "natural" system, 

 notwithstanding Dr. Ayres' animadversions on the term). I am un- 

 willing to trespass too largely on your space, and will merely offer 

 one brief remark on Dr. Ayres' second paper. The foregoing will, I 

 trust, explain to him my ideas of the nature of species, of which, as it 

 appears to me, he has taken a far too transcendental view. It is 

 needless repeating what has already been said; but if Dr. A. will par- 

 don me, I would beg to suggest the getting rid, as speedily as possi- 

 ble, of these ultra-metaphysical views as applied to Botany, for I am 

 sure a little reflection will convince him of the impossibility of apply- 

 ing the strict rules of logical induction to the boundless and ever-va- 

 rying phenomena of Nature. With this brief remark I trust that Dr. 

 A. will feel satisfied that the preceding remarks do not leave " un- 

 touched the great question of the comparative beauty and utility of 

 the two rival systems." T. E. 



