[ 2 /3 ] 



fjftem whatfoever, fo that confufion may not be created by re- 

 ferring to different fynonyms ; but till this becomes the univerfal 

 practice amongft naturalifts, the new fyftem occafion s the greateft 

 confufion, and muft do fo for perhaps half a century. 



Is it to be expected, for example, that an Englifh botanic, who 

 is well acquainted with the plants of his own country, by the 

 affiftance of Ray, mall immediately drop the name of a plant, 

 now become familiar to him, in order to new-chriften it by the 

 Linnaean appellation ? 



One of the great pleafures in botany is, to produce a rather 

 uncommon plant to thofe who know it to be curious ; but the 

 Englifh botanift will not have much fatisfaSion in (hewing it to a 

 fimpler, who is not acquainted with it under the name given by 

 Gerard or Ray. 



I remember to have once met an elderly gentleman, nearTen- 

 terden, who had in his hand a very fine fpecimen of the Touch- 

 menot, or Balfamine lutea of Ray ; and when I had congratul- 

 ated him upon having found this rare plant, he immediately 

 told me, that he would not but have met me for five pounds, as 

 it fignifed little to have made the difcovery In his neighbourhood^ 

 where no one had the leaft tincture of botany. 



If I had upon accofting him, however, referred this Rayian 

 botanift to the Syngenefia Monogamia of Linnaeus, there would 

 have been an end of our conference, and he would have onlv 

 flared, confidering me as either ignorant, or an afFecler of unin- 

 telligible terms. I muft add, that I think he had a good right fo 

 to do ; for in England the fynonyms of Gerard and Ray fhould 

 be referred to, with which moft Linnaeans are entirely unac- 

 quainted, whilft by this confufion of names the difciples of 

 Ray and Linnaeus are perpetually at crofs purpofes. If I mention 



N n the 



