RECENT PROGRESS OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 39 
have, I understand, made proposals for the preparation of a new edition ; but 
this would scarcely be fair to the memory of the talented author. There are 
many errors in it which he would have corrected and which must be cor- 
rected, there are many views which he would now have modified and which 
must be modified, but it would be impossible to tell to what extent he would 
have admitted such corrections and modifications ; and they at any rate would 
bear so important a part upon the whole plan, that the new editors would 
not be justified in issuing the altered work under the sanction of his name. 
It must be in a great measure rewritten, as will clearly appear on conside- 
ration of the following particulars :— 
The technical characters of each order would be carefully checked in 
every particular. They were often taken from some one or two genera sup- 
posed to be typical, and in some instances have been proved inapplicable even 
to the great bulk of the order, or to have been founded wholly on error. In 
many cases they may require considerable extension as to particulars which 
have proved to be more important than they were originally estimated. 
The affinities given require reconsideration throughout. Lindley insisted 
on the principle, which was at that time generally prevalent amongst the 
first naturalists, that affinity was no more than correspondence in structure, 
more or less modified in proportion to its connexion with the phenomena of 
life, and that an absolute scale of the relative value of characters founded on 
their degree of constancy could be drawn up, so as to form a practical test of 
natural affinities ; and it was from an adherence to this rule that, in grouping 
his orders, he was led to dissociate such natural allies as Apocynes and 
Asclepiadew or Ericaceze and Vacciniez in order to class them with others 
universally acknowledged to be more remote. The new light thrown on the 
subject by the doctrine that affinity is the result of consanguinity, would, 
there is very little doubt, have been taken fully advantage of by Lindley 
himself. He would have acknowledged that there is no character whica 
may not be of very different importance in different orders or genera, or even 
in different countries in one and the same order or genus, and that the true 
characters of all natural assemblages are not so extremely simple as he then 
believed them to be (see ‘ Veg. Kingd.’ Introd. p. xxix). The adoption of 
this theory would entail the rewriting and extending the important para- 
graphs introduced by Lindley immediately after the technical characters of 
each order, and destined to indicate the most generaliy constant features and 
the most important aberrant forms exhibited in it, and their connexion, near 
or distant, with other orders or isolated genera or species. 
Geographical distribution has, since Lindley wrote, acquired great impor- 
tance with reference to natural method, as well as forming now an essential 
item in the general history of plant-races. Although never neglected in the 
‘Vegetable Kingdom,’ it requires much further development, with a résumé 
of such evidences as the recent progress of the science has collected, respect- 
ing the presumed origin and extension of the several orders. And to this 
should be added a reference to the localities and the presumed geological 
periods among the remains of which well-authenticated representatives of 
any order may have been found. This, however, should only extend to the 
few cases where the evidences are really satisfactory. The numerous 
paleontological identifications derived from impressions of leaves only, upon 
which so many expositions of ancient distribution have been founded, are 
for the most part mere guesses, more likely to lead astray by giving a false 
support to preconceived theories than to supply any sound data for the 
history of plant-races. 
