vi PREFACE. 



into Botanical nomenclature, and indeed it must be ac- 

 knowledged that the concussion of revolution whe- 

 ther in science or politics, even to fulfil the most im- 

 portant object, but little accords with our natural de- 

 sire of harmony. And yet the same love of revolu- 

 tion might also have been urged with equal force 

 against the great Linnaeus, who in the zenith of his fame, 

 but seldom spared the labours of his predecessors or 

 contemporaries when they stood in the way of his dar- 

 ling system. 



But we are at length inclined to believe, that the 

 last and most perfect of systems, perfect because the 

 uncontaminated gift of Nature, is about to be confer- 

 red upon and confirmed by the Botanical world. The 

 great plan of natural affinities, sublime and extensive, 

 eludes the arrogance of solitary individuals, and requires 

 the concert of every Botanist and the exploration of 

 every country towards its completion. Can we deny 

 the perception of a prevailing affinity throughout the 

 vegetable kingdom, and carp at the anomalous charac- 

 ter of a few individuals? But even here the science 

 begins to triumph, when we perceive that the anomalies 

 diminish by the accession of objects. 

 * # * * 



Whatever might have been my impression in favour 

 of the system of arrangement by affinities, the conve- 

 nience and prevalence of the artificial system of Lin- 

 naeus, still almost exclusively taught throughout the 

 United States, rendered some deference to public 

 opinion due from the author of a treatise like the pre- 

 sent, addressed merely to tho5^e who read the English 

 language. 



