181 



OBJECTIONS TO THE NATURAL SYSTEM. 



WE are told, by those who boast of this as the 

 Natural System, that it brings together the plants 

 which most resemble one another in anatomical struc- 

 ture, in what are called affinities, and in nutritious or 

 noxious qualities. To show that I do not exaggerate 

 a jot in this statement, I refer the reader to London's 

 Encyclopedia of Plants, p. 1052, where we are told, 

 in the portion of the work contributed by Professor 

 Lindley, that when the natural order of a plant is 

 ascertained, many of its most important qualities, such 

 as " medicinal properties," may be " safely " inferred. 

 Now, if this were so, nobody, I think, would dispute 

 the high value of this Natural system. Unfortunately, 

 however, this principle is virtually contradicted by 

 what follows. Thus, under CELLULAHES, Order viii., 

 Mr. Lindley gives us " Cetraria Islandica, c., tonic 

 and nutritive/' along with, " Evernia vulpina, poison- 

 ous." Under VASCU LARES, again, Order cxli., (to say 

 nothing as to size, form, and structure,) " the fig, 

 the mulberry, and the bread-fruit tree" are natu- 

 rally (common sense would say unnaturally) classed 

 " among worthless weeds," such as " the common 

 stinging nettle," " and shabby half herbaceous shrubs," 

 such as f ' the hemp and the hop ; " but what are we 

 to think of " safely " inferring from the fig, the bread- 

 fruit tree, and the sago plant, the " medicinal pro- 

 perties " of (< the Upas tree, now known to be the 

 Antiaris toxicaria, the inspissated juice of which," 



