GENU S. 



anotln;r," though, like 'the chriftian niorahft, he cannot 

 hope to reach the lummit. 



Lamarck has very well traced the indiftiiift origin, 

 and gradual improvement of generic knowledge amonj;- 

 botanifts. In an early ftate of the fcience, fome general 

 atTociations were formed, though founded on vague and un- 

 philofophical principles. The idea and name of a rofe fooii 

 embraced many different fpecies, an<l l^-nce the dog-rofe, 

 the white-rofe, the 'damaft;-rofe, &c. were dillinguilhed 

 from one another, and a fort of generic and fpecilic nomen- 

 clature arofe, fuially extended fydemalically to every plant 

 by hinnsus. Cafpar Bauhin in his Pimix, anno 1623, firil 

 dillnbuted plants under a kind of generic fedtions, with 

 fome mention of the peculiar characters of each ; but he 

 did not profit, as he ought to have done, of the groat prin- 

 ciple flrll inculcated by Conrad Gcfncr, that the parts of 

 the flower and fruit afford the only clue to a fcienlific diftri- 

 bution of vegetables ; a principle to which " the very ex- 

 ifLence of botany, as a fcience, is owing." Tourncfort at 

 length, adopting this maxim, undertook the arrangement 

 of all known plants into genera, illuftraling eacii by a 

 ficure of the parts of fruftilication, fo as to difplay their 

 dilUnguifhing characters ; but it was referred for I^innsus 

 to deiine thofe charafters in words, and thus to perfett the 

 .plan of Tournefort, as well as to reform it in many points, 

 and correcl fome fundamental defcits. He extended more- 

 over his improvements to the clear definition and nomencla- 

 ture of the fpccies, which Tournefort had, v>ithout difcri- 

 mination, merely collected, by tlieir old appellations, under 

 . each of his genera, except indeed that he preferved an uni- 

 formity in their generic names. 



Linnaeus did not at once hit upon the befl manner of dc- 

 .Sningr his genera. His firft aim was to defcribe all the feven 

 parts of fruclification in each, fo that their differences 

 might appear, v.-hich is the plan of all the editions of his 

 Gsn;ra Plaiitarum. At length, in the fixth edition of his 

 Svflcma Nalur,^, publifaed in 1748, he undertook a fynop- 

 tical table of the fliort cffcntial charaftero of the genera, 

 and in the tenth he carried this plan nearly to the perfeftion 

 i:i which he left it at his death. It lias been adopted, not 

 . only by his pupils, and the followers of his fyftem of clafTi- 

 Hcation, but even by tiie celebrated Juffieu and his fcholars, 

 v.ho have widely differed from the learned Swede as to otl »'r 

 ir.-inciples of arrangement, and who have certainly not im- 

 proved upon h.is flyle of definition, terminology, or nomen- 

 (ciat are. Juffieu indeed has, like Gctian, fub;oined to tl.e 

 i'-.-neric charaflers takeuvfrom the fruttitication, very uftful 

 indications of the habit, which invention of the latter 

 botanill was highly applauded by Linnxus. 



Linn^us termed the full dtfcriptions in h.is dmra Planla- 

 rum, the nfl/Hra/ eharafter of each genus. Tiiey ought to 

 accord with every fpccies of each, but in large genera, 

 many fpccies of which have been difcovered fublequently to 

 their etlablilhment, this is fcarcely pofilble. Such cha- 

 racters as ferve merely ta dillinguifa e?.ch genus from 

 every other in its artificial order, in the Linnxan, or 

 any other artiiici;d, fytlem, are called fiicl:t!n;is • tlicfe are 

 •much b;tter extended fo as to include fufficient marks of 

 difcrimii.ation between the genus under .confideration and 

 every other, and they then become the cif:!nic.! characUrs 

 iibove-mentioned, which ought in every fyltemauo botsnieal 

 woriv to 'land at the head ot each gcnas, or at i":'.il: 10 be in- 

 dicated by a reference. Lainarck, tlioug!i n-.vch difpofed 

 to criticife the great Swedifh botaniil, a::d differing totally 

 from him refpecting his opinion of nat jral genera, very can- 

 didly allows that " tliefe effential characters are the refult of 

 one of Linnxus's moft happy ideas, and cannot but contri- 



bute greatly to the perfeetion of Botany.'" The fame able 

 writer affents entirely to the Linna-an maxim, founded on 

 the good fenfe and penetration of Conrad Gefner, that 

 " generic charafters ought always to be taken from the 

 parts of fructification alone ;'' " at leaft," fays Lamarck, 

 " if that be always prafticable." When it is not, he would 

 borrow characters from any thing very decided in the habit ; 

 nor does he perceive that any inconvenience would rrfult 

 from it. To this we objeft the uncertainty of fuch charac- 

 ters, even when taken from what is leaft exceptionable, tlis 

 inflorcfcencc. 'Of this no more Itriking example can be 

 found than the UmLiIhte, as diflribuled by Linnxus after 

 the principles of his friend Artedi, in which, however it 

 may be difguifed by fophiftry, the inflorefcence makes a 

 leading part. Thofe who juilly, like Lamarck, complain 

 of the errors, unjurtly termed by him arbitrary and iilunlary 

 errors, which are found in this part of Linnajus's fyltem, 

 cannot but allow that they all originate from his having had 

 rcfpeft to the inflorefcence, that is, to the umbels and in- 

 volucrums, inftcad of the flowers and feeds, which if truly 

 obferved arc fully fufficient in this, as, we behcve, in every 

 other natural order. Indeed the more we confidcr the f\ib- 

 ject, the more we are convinced that, although the inflo- 

 refcence ought, like every part of a plant, to enter into 

 our general contemplation before we decide upon a genus, 

 it ought never to form a part of the technical or effential 

 charatl-'r. It is tempting enough to botanills who are not 

 endowed with clear mathematical powers of difcrimination 

 and definitiorv, to amplify their generic characters with airy 

 thing that, as they fuppofe, may give them additional 

 ftrtngth But characters, when too long, rather indicate 

 feebhnefs in themfelvcs and in their authors, and endanger 

 a return towards barbarifm in a fcience, which has been 

 raifed to its preient pitch of perfection by the didaftic pre- 

 cifion and decifive brevity of Linnxus. S. 



Genus, Kind,'m Logic and l]Ielaphyfics,'n that which has 

 feveral fpecies under it ; or it is the origin and *-adix of 

 divers fpecies, joined together by fome affinity, or com- 

 mon relation between them. See Clas.sificatio.v. 



Genus is a nature, or idea,focommon and univerfal, that 

 it extends to other general ideas,- and includes them under 

 it. Thus, animal is faid to be a genus, in refpeft of man and 

 brute ; becaufe man and brute agree in the comnion nature 

 and character of animal ; fo a right-lined figure of four 

 fides is a genus in refpetl of a parallelogram, and a trape- 

 zium ; and fo, hkewile, is fubftance in refpcdt of fubffance 

 ■ extended, which is body ; and thinking fubftance, which is 

 mind. 



A good definition, fay th.c fchoolmen, confifts of genus 

 and difference. 



In tiie general, genus may be faid to be a clafs of a 

 greater extent than fpecies ; and which is not convertible 

 therewitli : for though we may fay, that all body is fub- 

 ftance;; yet it cannot be faid all fubilance is body. 



Add, that whatever may be faid of the genus may 

 likewife be faid of tlie -fpecies under it : e. gr. whatever 

 is faid of ens, being, will equally hold of the body. 



'i'he fchoolmen define the genus logicum to be, an univerfal 

 which is predicaVile of feveral things of different fpccies ; 

 a.id divide it into two kinds : the one, the fiimmu:n, which 

 is the higheft, or moft general ; and has nothing above 

 it to relpecl as a genus : the other, tli-i fubalicni, which they 

 likewife call mdiiiw. 



Gf.sva /ummi/m is that which holds the uppermoft place 

 in its clais, or predicament ; or that which may be divided 

 into feveral Ipecies, each whereof is a genus ia refpcdt 01 

 other fpecies placed below it. 



Thus, 



