Botany and Zoology. 285 



calling the lower groups formed for scientific purposes subyenera, sections^ 

 subsections^ divisions^ &c., or suborders^ tribes^ subtrihes, divisions^ &c., as 

 the case maybe; — to maintain the original names for the purposes of 

 language; — and, for the purposes of science, to give to the subordinate 

 groups substantive or substantively taken adjective names as the case may 

 be, whenever these subordinate groups are so well defined or so natural, 

 that, but for the convenience of language^ they might have made good 

 genera or orders; — and, when these subordinate groups are less defined 

 or less natural, either to give them no names at all, distinguishing them 

 by figures or signs such as *, **, &c., or §1, §2, &c., or to give them 

 mere adjective names, 



*' Or 2ndly. To consider even the lowest of these intermediate groups 

 between species and original genera, or between genera and original or- 

 ders, as so many independent genera or orders, with their corresponding 

 substantive or substantively taken adjective names expected to be intro- 

 duced into ordinary botanical language. 



"The first of these courses appears to be the only one which can save 

 botanical nomenclature from replunging into the chaos in w^hich Linnaeus 

 found it It was strongly advocated by the elder DeCandolle ; although 

 in the latter years of his life, seeing how general was the disposition to 

 convert his subgenera and sections into genera, and his suborders and 

 tribes into orders, he himself more or less gave in to the general practice. 

 The same principle was adopted by Endlicher, but he again was disposed 

 to go too far in giving substantive names to purely technical or ill-defined 

 subsections of genera. 



" The second course is that which is now unfortunately but too general. 

 Independently of a natural pride we all feel in establishing new genera 

 or ordei-s, it is felt how useful it is, in the study of aflSaitles, to define cor- 

 I'ectly and give names to all natural groups of every grade, however nu- 

 merous they may be, and how easy it is, in the immense variety of lan- 

 guage, to coin these names indefinitely; but it is not perceived that in 

 attempting to introduce them all into ordinary botanical language, the 

 memory is taxed beyond the capabihties of any mind, and the original 

 and legitimate object of the Linnean nomenclature is wholly lost sight of. 

 In a purely scientific point of view it matters little if the ordei-s are con- 

 verted into classes or alliances, the genera into orders, and the sections 

 and subsections into genera; their relative importance does not depend 

 on the names given to them, but on their height in the scale of com- 

 prehensiveness ; but, for language, the great implement, without which 

 science cannot work, it is of the greatest importance that the groups 

 ^'hich give their substantive names to every species they include should 

 remain large. If, independently of the inevitable increase of genera by 

 new discoveries, such old ones as Ficus, Beyonta, Anim, Erica, Ac. are 

 divided* into ten, twenty, thirty or forty independent ones, with names 

 and characters to be recollected before any one species can be spoken o^ 

 rf genera are to be reckoned by tens of thousands instead of thousands, 

 the range of anv individual botanist will be limited to a small portion of 

 tHe w^hole field of the science. So also, as long as the number of orders 



And it must be home in mind, that if genera so eminently natural and univer- 

 sally recognized as these, are to be thus subdivided and renamed for ordinary botan- 

 ical parlance, so may Carez, Ruhun, Salix, and hundreds of other equally well-eatab- 

 iished genera. 



