76 ■ REVIEW. [March, 



certain more general types in the formation of species, is it not 

 reasonable to assume that all organisms are so formed ? " Vel 

 potius dicanij si est ubi genera, familise, classes a natura definita 

 sint, nonne ubique ita factum esse sumendum est, etiamsi non 

 ubique nobis contingit, ut in naturalium ordinum expositione 

 veras affinitates perspiciamus?"^ The author next argues, that if 

 the more general types are assumed, it need not necessarily be 

 inferred that all tbe species must be alike, because tbe more ge- 

 neral types may comprehend several more special types. 



The individuals of the same species, he argues, are not all 

 similar ; they vary in the shape and size of their leaves, in the 

 length of their stem, in the colour of their flowers ; " Yet I 

 doubt not," he says, " that those who deny that the larger 

 groups are natural, Avill admit that all the individuals of the 

 same species have been formed according to the same type [ad 

 eundem typum) . For in species fades non omnibus una, nee 

 diversa tamen, quales decet esse sororumJ'' 



" But if these more general types have no existence, I think 

 we may ask, why in certain orders both forms and qualifications 

 are present which are absent in other orders? Why are the 

 flowers in the Synantherui racemose, when in many other orders 

 the inflorescence is both capitate and racemose? Why is the 

 albumen corneous in the Pal ma, farinaceous in the Gramine(S, 

 both fleshy and farinaceous in the Cyperacecs ? why in the 

 Aracecp sometimes of diverse kinds, and sometimes none?" 



Therefore the Professor concludes that there are in genera and 

 in orders certain types ; that groups of plants are formed on 

 these types, and that these groups are made, not by us, but by 

 Nature. 



The first Chapter is terminated by the Linnsean maxim, viz. 

 " Character em non constituere genus, sed genus characterem •/' 

 which in plain English means that the character or quality does 

 not determine the genus, but the genus the character. Query, 

 have modern botanists abandoned this safe maxim ? Do they 

 do as the ancient Procrustes, — first draw up a character for their 

 genus, and then follow the example of the above-named worthy, 



* " If larger or smaller groups are anyiohere observed as Nature's handywork, is it 

 not reasonable to assiune that tliey exist everyiohere, althovigh we may have been 

 unable to assign them their true place in a natui-al arrangement, or have failed to 

 perceive their true relationship ?" 



