xyiii LETTERS OF WILLIAM GRIFFITH, 



Of one thing I am quite sure, that owing to these causes all authors 

 who publish largely, must publish unequally, the public are in this 

 respect liiie greedy children, who must be satisfied. I regret, that 

 you have not chalked out something new in Leguminosae. As for 

 Terebinthacese, I have my ideas that many of the divisions are mis- 

 placed, and what business it has near Leguminosae I cannot imagine. 

 I should be most happy to note the little I know of Compositae for 

 you, but my location is quite fatal to my vocation^ except in the mere 

 way of collecting materials. If you will give me timely notice on 

 my arrival in Calcutta I will gladly, most gladly undertake to assist 

 you, especially in Cryptogamia. Yet I can scarcely be in Calcutta 

 for another year. Do you know that I think I am on the scent of 

 the male organs of Ferns, I am going to write to Mr. Solly about 

 it, and intend to postpone every thing on my becoming settled to a 

 rigid examination of all Cryptogamia orders, i. e. the more deve- 

 loped ones. Algae will be out of my power, and most probably Fungse, 

 Bentham will do wonders in Leguminosae, as a systematist he is first 

 rate, but he is debarred the use of minute characters, which are of- 

 ten most valuable. I intend taking up all the large orders sometime 

 or other, for it is only from their study that one may expect to ob- 

 tain sound ideas on the value of characters. Besides my present trip 

 will favor me in doing so, as all the large European orders abound 

 here ; your remark about natural orders is quite true. Swainson has 

 excellently shewn up the absurdity of supposing species to be the 

 only definite productions, this opinion cannot be held any longer. 

 The expression may probably be, that the higher the group the more 

 natural is the association it forms ; thus, what can be a more natural 

 division than Monocotyledones ? Have you ever read Swainsons 

 works, especially his Preliminary Discourse on the Classification 

 of Animals, unpopular as they are, they are most philosophical, and 

 ought to be learnt by heart ; when I begin my real work I shall cer- 

 tainly have a table of his rules framed for constant reference. 



No man can paint his own portrait, any more than be his own 

 physician, your protrait of botanical self, is unjustly severe. There 

 are many points of philosophical botany, to which so far as I can 

 judge from some of your remarks, you are capitally adapted. The 

 use of microscope, and of keen knives are very good adjuncts, but 

 many of the higher branches of botany do not require them, such 



