114 
of members according to one and the same view. When judged quite apart 
from any partial treatment, even the best system at present known a3 such, 
while pretending to follow the mutual relations of A. B. C. D......... » in 
reality, merely denotes the relation of A—-B according to one view; that of 
B—C according to another view; and that of C—D according to still another 
view; and that of some remote members, such as C and K, very faintly, 
if at all. The construction of such a system is something like sewing a 
fox’s skin to a lion’s. Figuratively speaking, such a system is comparable 
to a marquetry picture of a mountain, one piece of which is taken from a 
picture of the mountain viewed from the south, a second piece as viewed from 
the north, a third as viewed from the east, and so on; while the real natural 
system is to be likened metaphorically to a model of the mountain itself. 
Such a model, if seen from different sides, presents different phases, as a real 
system denoting real natural relations should; but, on the contrary, the 
marquetry picture shows but one appearance like the system at present known 
to us. The phase of the former is dynamic, while that of the latter is 
static. If we may be allowed to call such a static system “ natural’, as we 
usually do, then the systems of Linnarus, ANTOINE JUssrIEU, DE CaNDOLLE, 
ENDLICHER, BRONGNIART, BENTHAM- HooKER, VAN TIEGHEM, ENGLER, HALLIER 
or even what TrevB has proposed, should be regarded as natural. On this 
oceasion, however, it can not well be said that one system is natural while 
the others are artificial. All systems should be true and natural regarding 
one part according to a certain view, but regarding another part by another 
view. But, if by natural system we mean, as we ought, that one in which 
we can see all the natural relations of all the members of the system (according 
to any view and between any two members), then it must be quite different 
from the systems of the great authorities above mentioned. It follows that 
the above - named systems are not natural but artificial, and have been establi- 
shed merely for the sake of convenience. We can not, therefore, go so far as 
to say that this system is more natural than that; but rather that the former 
is more convenient than the latter. In this sense, even ENGLER’S system, 
which is at present regarded as the most natural, is nothing more than a very 
convenient system. In the following pages I shall try to give a full account 
