26 ROBERT MORISON AND JOHN RAY 



and (2) the consistency in the application of those principles. 

 The conclusion to be drawn from such a consideration of the 

 foregoing table is that Morison was more fortunate in his theory 

 than in his practice. In spite of his statement that the " nota 

 gejterica" should be taken from the fructification, many of the 

 Sectiones are based upon quite other characters : such are (among 

 the Herbs) the Scandentes, the Corymbiferae, the Culmiferae. 

 Had Morison adhered more closely to his own principles, the 

 results would have been more in accordance with his sanguine 

 anticipations : such a heterogeneous group as Sectio V, for 

 instance, would have been impossible. It was, perhaps, on 

 account of its inconsistency that Morison's method never came 

 into general use, although it was adopted enthusiastically by 

 Paul Amman, Professor at Leipzig, in his Character Plantartim 

 Natiiralis (ed. 1685) ; and, with some modifications, by Christo- 

 pher Knaut, Professor at Halle, in his Emmieratio Plantarnin 

 circa Halam Saxomim sponte provenientium, 1687, as well as by 

 Paul Hermann, Professor at Leyden, in his Florae Ltigdnno- 

 Batavi Flores {&d. Zumbach), 1690. 



Morison's writings evoked severe contemporary criticism, 

 more on account of their manner than of their matter. His 

 constant reference to the " Halliccinationes " of Caspar Bauhin 

 especially, was considered to be offensive even if warranted, for 

 every botanist admitted a debt of gratitude to the author of the 

 Pinax. Equally resented was Morison's oft-repeated statement 

 that he had drawn the principles of his classification, not from 

 the works of other writers, but from the book of Nature alone. 

 It was urged against him that he had failed to do justice to his 

 predecessors, particularly to Cesalpino : and it must be admitted 

 that there is unfortunately some truth in this allegation. 

 Morison's indebtedness to Cesalpino is suggested by the fact 

 that the nature of the fruit, and in a secondary degree that of 

 the flower, was the basis of both their methods. From a com- 

 parison of the two systems, as set out in this lecture, their 

 fundamental resemblance can be traced through the many 

 differences of detail. Since Morison does not quote Cesalpino 

 in his books, it might be inferred that possibly he had not read 

 him. But there is convincing evidence to the contrary. There 



