155 



veiiience. If n, ujitural system should be fomid to expliiiu all tlie mutiial 

 relatioiis of all the members of the system, it would be a djnamic one. 



8. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM. 



The questiou now arises as to hoAV to construct the dynamic sjstem. 

 The best and simplest way of doing this is to take a static system Uke 

 Engler's or Bentham-Hooker's, as a foundation, or rather as a framework, 

 aaid to put it, so to spsak, into a dynamic condition. To this matter, I shall 

 retm-n later on, but let us now proceed to discuss the reasons for so doing. 



However difterent may be the static system taken at first as a framework, 

 the dynamic system, affcer it is completed, is ever the same in its real 

 meaning. It is only the appearance of the sysfcem that varies with the 

 framework. Engler's system is diiferent fi'om Bentham-Hooker's ; but 

 the diflference is merely because of the difference of Engler's ^iew from 

 Bentham-Hooker's. When we take Engler's sysfcem as a framework or, so 

 to speak, as a stai'ting point, for the constraction of a dynamic system, the 

 latter system is quite the same in its real meaning as that consti"ucfced by 

 •taking Bentham-Hooker's system. This work of consfcrucfcion is something 

 like a cruise rouud the workl. However much the starting point may be 

 shifted, affcer the voyage is finished, the ports we have called at are all the 

 same. Let me take auother metaphor to explain my idea correctly. To 

 estabhsh natm-al relations, wliich is the principal objacfc of constructing a 

 natiu*al system, is, as it were, to acquire a thorough understanding of the 

 features of a mountain. As an example, take Mt. Fuji, that fitting emljlam 

 of the Japanese natiou and my special favourite siuca my youth. As a 

 natural system lias several different aspects, so has the volcano. As the 

 former should be considered from difierent points of view, so should be the 



