310 REVIEW. ^ [October^ 



The brief reflections here submitted are offered only to be- 

 ginners and amateurs, " who study botany with zeal, but only 

 as a relaxation from labour ; who have only the intervals snatched, 

 as it were, from duty and business, to devote to this pursuit. 

 Descriptive botany is like a mark that everybody may throw his 

 bolt at, and in this respect it has the advantage of other sci- 

 ences ; but, on the other side, it lies under the disadvantage of 

 being sometimes attempted by juveniles, or inadequately en- 

 lightened authors, who judge and criticize, without judgment and 

 discretion, the works of men who have made this science the 

 sole object of their studies, and who have spent their lives in 

 observing and investigating the works of nature. 



"At all times prudence and moderation are commendable, 

 especially in beginners and amateurs ; but they are necessary, 

 at the present period in the history of the science, when there 

 are two sects or schools of phytographers entertaining opposite 

 views on vital points j both well sustained by men whose merit 

 and knowledge are incontestable. Young wa'iters and tyros should 

 be extremely circumspect, and beware of reckless, sweeping as- 

 sertions. They ought to apprehend this truth, viz. that in the 

 works of descriptive botany the species are badly described [gros- 

 sierement decrites), not because the authors had not in general a 

 perfect acquaintance with them, but because it is so difficult ex- 

 actly to select and express the characters called specific, or to 

 seize those aspects under which natural objects present them- 

 selves to our observation. 



" When an author, after deep study, has succeeded in compre- 

 hending a new or a dubious species, it is very often impossible 

 by a simple description to convey to others his apprehensions 

 and conceptions.'^ 



The author proceeds with his reflections, and concludes that 

 in some species, quite distinct, the characters are unhappily not 

 very decisive in the diagnoses (distinctive marks) . 



" Beginners," he proceeds, " should not rely implicitly on de- 

 scriptions, which are necessarily always imperfect. . . . They 

 should examine the objects themselves. By comparing indi- 

 viduals of the same species, and species of the same genus, they 

 will discover that the species are better distinguished by naturj 

 than by books, and they will end in p iceiving that the descrip- 

 tions which they thought faulty are better than they appeared 



