[f 141 ]1 



of the ftudy of nature, that this great natiiralift hat 

 fo diftinguifhed himfelf. From YlWt, botuny boafts 

 new ara% ^rA Haller, one of the firft writers of 

 this age, in the fame line of fcience, and who alone 

 might dare to rival him, has, with a liberality of 

 mind becoming a great man, allowed this fupe^ 

 riority to LiNN^fius. 



Before we proceed to a particular account of 

 this part of the fyftem, it may not be improper to 

 premife fome obfervations on methods of botany in 

 general, before our author wrote. It is needlefs 

 to urge the neceffity of method in the ftudy of na- 

 ture, as it is the very foul of fcience ; and, amldft 

 fuch a multitude of objeds which the vegetable 

 kingdom affords, all attempts towards the acqui- 

 sition of knowledge without it, muft end in un* 

 certainty and conf^^fion. We have fufficient proofs 

 of this in the writers upon plants before the in- 

 vention of fyftems, and fee and deplore the want 

 of them, in the lofs of many valuable articles, not 

 only in the Materia Medica^ but in the Materia 

 Pi^foria^ and 'Tin5ioria of the antients. Articles, 

 the virtues and properties of which appear to have 

 been well alcertained, are now loft to us, for want 

 of a more fcieotific arrangement of the fubjeds, 

 and accuracy in the defcriptions of them. 



Botanic writers chofe very different methods 

 of arranging plants, not only before, but fince, 

 the invention of fyft'ematic botany. The al- 

 phabetic has been much followed, efpecially in 

 local catalogues. Some have difpofcd the plants 

 according to the time of fiowering •, as Pauli^ in his 



^adripartitum 



