[ 2 7 2 3 



deeply concave, and the fides approach each -other fo nearly as to 

 form a ftrong refemblance to a bird's neft. 



Should therefore fuch a remarkable change in the appearance 

 of a plant be omitted in the defcription of it by any botanift ? 

 and if it is omitted, will not the ftudent be often mifled ? 



I will now fuppofe the fame botanift to be furnimed only with 

 Ray's Synopfis of Britifh plants, and to confult it on the fame 

 occauon. 



Ray divides the perfeft plants of our illand (and fuch is the 

 wild carot) into twenty-three genera, the nth of which confifts 

 of the herbce umbelUferce to which, if I am not blind, I muft 

 immediately know, at almoft any feafon, that this plant muft 

 belong, though I am at fome diftance from it. This clafs (or 

 genus) again contains but 25 principal plants, which are alfb 

 divided into feven clear and diftincl fubdivifions,. and which re- 

 duces my trouble probably to the examination of not more than 

 rive fpecies, whereas if I confult Linnaeus, I muft pore over thirty; 

 nor then can receive any information, except when the plant is 

 in full flower. Notwithftanding this fuperior facility of procur- 

 ing the more perfpicuous and interefting account from Ray, many 

 an Englifh botanift hath been deterred from profecuting this branch 

 of ftudy by the difficulties of the Linnaean fyftem, which he is 

 told perhaps is the only one that deferves to be confulted. ^' C: -- 



After this comparifon can there be a doubt whether the Eng- 

 lilh botanift mould confult Ray or Linnaeus for an Englifh plant, 

 the former not only being the more compendious guide, but point- 

 ing out the road at moft feafon s", whilft the other only gives ra- 

 ther obfcure directions for a fmgle month of the year ? I have 

 before allowed, that there is a great advantage in adopting any 



> Having a rundle fupported by fruit-ftalks or fpokes. 



2 . fyftem 



