to DR. R. WIGHT. 



XV 



to affinities ; Ochnacea the same, neither being as yet properly placed. 

 I doubt the correctness of Lindleys parallel between this and La- 

 biatse and Boragineae, because the carpella of Ochnaceee are simple* 

 while those of the others are double, witness as the most evident 

 proof, Heliotropieae. However, perhaps this is comparing them too 

 closely. I once tried to argue it out that Labiatae etc were quadri- 

 carpellary, but it would not do, because all the most defined orders? 

 all those to which we ascribe perfection, have bicarpellary fruit 

 whenever the fruit is in reality not perfectly simple. Cruciferse, Um- 

 belliferse, Rubiacese, Compositse, Labiatfe, Boragineae, Gramineae 

 are all dicarpellary, and so would Leguminosse be : I know in- 

 stances when they are, but I do not know one, where they are tri- 

 carpellary : so much for DC. ideas of perfection. Synthesis is more 

 perfect than analysis, Monopetalism than Polypetalism. 



What are the most perfect plants ? We shall never get at the 

 natural system, until every leaven of the old systems is abolished. 

 None of your single characters can ever hold good, not even the 

 most comprehensive ones as Dicotyledones, Monocotyledones, and 

 Acotyledones. How unphilosophical have been our systematists, they 

 apply natural rules to the minor divisions, arbitrary ones to the 

 grand divisions ! Look at Mr. Brown's Prodromus, you will not 

 find there any artificial subdivisions, or divisions. The more I 

 learn the more I am convinced that MacLeay and Swanison are 

 the only persons who have got a glimpse of the Natural System. 

 I cannot conceive what people are about when they lose sight of 

 the grand numerical lessons taught us by nature in the great divisi- 

 ons : I look on the idea that Nature has one determinate plan of 

 operations, as highly philosophical ; the same measure which she car- 

 ries thro* most obviously in her primary divisions, will be traced 

 throughout her lower subdivisions. Look at DCs. list of Com- 

 positse, it is a perfect chaos, yet in no order will the natural di- 

 visions be found more plainly marked out than in this, the most 

 perfect of her vegetable tribes. But I have lost sight of my 

 critique. Your remarks on Impatiens distribution, are just such 



remarks as I like to read, they are what I call anti for 



although there may be many in Botany, there is but one who 



describes plants, leaving off at the ovulum and pollen, and who never 

 makes a remark to greater purpose, than that such a plant "is a 



