302 Vr. Lindley's Natural System of Botany. 



case, it is the natural result of the progress of discovery ; and in- 

 stead of embarrassing the student, as is often supposed, does in re- 

 ality render the study of the science much more clear and satisfac- 

 tory.* Notwithstanding the great increase of genera within the last 

 few years, it may be safely said that at no previous period could a 

 really useful knowledge of the vegetable kingdom be acquired with 

 so little labor. In hazarding this remark, it is of course taken for 

 granted that the student will avail himself of all the advantages of 

 modern physiological botany and of the natural system : for so rapid 

 has been the discovery of new and strange forms of structure, for 

 which the artificial arrangement of Linnaeus makes no provision, that 

 the student who takes that system as his guide has indeed a hopeless 

 task before him. 



The essential characters of the orders appear to have been very 

 carefully revised in this edition, as also the remarks upon their affin- 

 ities, geographical distribution and sensible properties. Did our hm- 

 its allow, we might call the attention of our readers more particu- 

 larly to this part of the work. We cannot bring our remarks to a 

 close, however, without suggesting what we consider a very desira- 

 ble improvement upon the manner in which the seed is described 

 not only in this, but in almost all modern systematic works. It is 

 very necessary that an organ which affords such important charac- 

 ters, both as to its situation in the fruit, and particularly as to its in- 

 ternal structure, should be described with the greatest possible clear- 

 ness and precision, and in an uniform manner. The prevalent fault 

 of which we complain is thus noticed, as long ago as the year 1811, 

 by that most acute botanist, the late L. C. Richard. 



* This remark rests upon the supposition that proposed genera are clearly dis- 

 tinguished from their allies by essential differences of structure, and are not such 

 genera as those often proposed by Mr. Rafinesque, or Mr. Spach. (Vid. Ann. Set. 

 Naturelles, New Ser. vol. 4.) We cannot avoid here noticing a remark in Mr. 

 Eaton's Manual of Botany, (ed. 7, p. 84,) intended as a severe criticism upon 

 one of the most eminent botanists of the age. After giving, from De Candolle's 

 Prodromus, the character of the genus Enemion (in which " antheris subrotundis" 

 is translated " with rough anthers") the author subjoins — " A doibbtful genus ; but 

 De CandoUc requires very little authority for a neio genus." Now the genus Ene- 

 mion was established by Rafinesque, upon what is now well known to be a species 

 of Isopyrum ; and De Candolle, who never saw the plant of Rafinesque, but merely 

 copies his published description, prefixes the mark of a doubtful genus, and re- 

 marks that it seems to be the same as Isopyrunj ! The critic who could hazard 

 such a remark must have presumed that the Prodromus of De Candolle was not 

 likely to fall into the hands cf his readers. 



