BENTHAM'S FLORA OF HONGKONG. 119 



step by step in the observation of such peculiarities, or char- 

 acters, in his x^hant as may lead him, with the least delay, to 

 the individual description belonging to it. 



" For descriptions to be clear and readily intelligible, they 

 should be expressed as much as possible in ordinary well- 

 established language. But, for the purpose of accuracy, it is 

 necessary not only to give a more precise technical meaning 

 to many terms used more or less vaguely in common conver- 

 sation, but also to introduce purely technical names for such 

 parts of plants or forms as are of little importance except to 

 the botanist. In the present chapter it is proposed to define 

 such technical or technically limited terms as are made use of 

 in these Floras. 



" At the same time mathematical accuracy must not be ex- 

 pected. The forms and appearances assumed by plants and 

 their parts are infinite. Names cannot be invented for all ; 

 those even that have been proposed are too numerous for 

 ordinary memories. Many are derived from supposed resem- 

 blances to well-known forms and objects. These resemblances 

 are differently appreciated by different persons ; and the same 

 term is not only differently applied by two different botanists, 

 but it frequently happens that the same writer is led on differ- 

 ent occasions to give somewhat different meanings to the same 

 word. The botanist's endeavors should always be, on the one 

 hand to make as near an approach to precision as circum- 

 stances will allow, and on the other hand to avoid that prolix- 

 ity of detail and overloading with technical terms which tends 

 rather to confusion than to clearness. In this he will be more 

 or less successful. The aptness of a botanical description, 

 like the beauty of a work of imagination, will always vary 

 with the style and genius of the author." 



These Outlines are throughout so well sketched, and so 

 worthy to be regarded as of standard authority, that we must 

 still venture a criticism or two, looking to their possible im- 

 provement. 



In the first place, referring to paragraphs 8 and 88, we 

 must dissent from the proposition that the subject of homol- 

 ogy does not belong to " morphology in the proper sense of 



