%. 
250 Notice of Dr. Hooker’s Flora of New Zealand. 
followed the practice of every systematist of large experience and ac 
knowledged judgment since the days of Linnseus, as Bentham, Brown, 
the De Candolles, Decaisne, Jussieu, Lindley, and the Richards names 
which include not only the most learned sol WF but the most pro- 
found anatomists and physiologists. I am far from supposing that the 
and variation of species, and to weigh characters not only per sé, but 
with reference to those which prevail in the order to which the species 
under consideration belong. 
n working up incomplete floras especially, I believe it to be of the 
utmost importance to adopt such a course, and to resist steadily the 
temptation to multiply names, ‘for it is practically very difficult to ot 
s much to be said on both sides of such questions : the local botanist 
aes closer, perceives sooner, and often appreciates sees! ince 
ous crap and characters, w ich are overlooked or too hastily ais 
and the knowledge and experience required to make us 
purposes of generalization, another; minute differences peter 
long dwelt u on, become iis Stee ed and ass sume undue value, and : 
ions de- 
of a ately distributed han 
I have been led to dwell “i length upon this point, because I a <n 
the New Zealand student will at first find it difficult to agree plowiins 
lar cases) he must bear in mind that I have examined many 
specimens of the plant, gathered in‘all parts of the south a h be 
hemisphere, and have found, after a most laborious compariso , tne . 
cauld not define its charcters with sufficient comprehensiveness from 
* The state of the British flora proves not only — but further, that © — 
ror leads to many more of the like kind: students are led to ors od 
stant characters, to take a narrow view of the peti: and end 0 f botany, | 
to throw away time upon profitless discussions about the difference vets are 2 
nite i, Manica forms of plants, of whose identity really learned botanists 
