410 Mr. W. S. MacLeay's Examination of 



so far advanced as yourself. They have been looking for one natural 

 system, only one, and confined as their aim is, they have not as yet been 

 able to attain it. 



" It is the prevalent errour of modern Naturalists to attempt to gene- 

 " ralize where they ought to analyze, while their arrangements called 

 " natural, are almost all framed with a view to distinguish." Metaphy- 

 sically, perhaps, this passage is very clear, but what, in the name of 

 plain sense, is the meaning of it ? Modern Naturalists err in refraining 

 to analyze, and also err, inasmuch as they are all busy distinguishing ! 

 Perhaps, however, after all, there is consistency in this paradox, for we 

 have seen that you censure as well those who subdivide the Linnean ge- 

 nera as those who combine them into larger groupes. It was possible, 

 nevertheless, for you to have expressed yourself with greater clearness, 

 if this be really the meaning of so contradictory and curious a sentence. 



You next draw " a diagnosis" between M. M. Brovm and Decandolle, 

 which, because perhaps I am no Botanist, I cannot pretend altogether to 

 understand ; for the latter is blamed for " attempting fresh combinations 

 " at every stage," and the former praised " as his object is chiefly syn- 

 thesis.''^ I am the more sorry for my ignorance of the botanical differ- 

 ence between combination and synthesis, not merely because I have 

 myself the highest opinion of Mr. Brown's science, but because I of 

 course must feel interest in any eulogy of our friend by those who, as 

 Botanists, must be best able to judge of his merits. 



I have already hinted, tliat your distinction between the natural and 

 an artificial system, making the latter a descending series, and the for- 

 mer an ascending one, could have only been maintained by you from 

 love of paradox ; but as you return to this distinction, and may therefore 

 possibly beUeve it correct, I shall explain myself more fully. Both 

 kinds of system afford ascending and descending series. It is clear, for 

 instance, that the Linnean sexual system in Botany was in the first case 

 founded as much on the examination of individuals as if it had been the 

 natural system. In studying, therefore, any system, whether natural 

 or artificial, we must always begin with individuals, and look upwards, 

 discovering first the species, next the genus, and so on. It is true, in- 

 deed, that the genus may have been a more comprehensive groupe with 

 early Naturalists than with modern ; but however this may be, the above 



