COMPARISON OF THE TWO SYSTEMS OF BOTANY. 229 
would entrust themselves to a guide which had frequently led them into error, or 
who, knowing the fallacy of such a course, would recommend others to follow it ? 
The force of the above objection is not in the least diminished by the circumstance 
of most plants being readily assigned to their proper class. Without complete 
confidence in the accuracy of any method, it can never be employed advantageously; 
and the numerous cases in which the number of stamens is indeterminable, are 
calculated to beget the utmost distrust in the Linnsean classification. 
But the extravagant assumptions of the admirers of this system have a tendency 
to bring upon it far greater disrespect than its own failings. If it were affirmed 
that by thus simply apportioning the vegetable kingdom into a certain number of 
greater or less groups, inquiries after genera are in some degree facilitated, because 
the number of those in each group is infinitely less than the whole, we could to 
this most cordially subscribe. But when we read language tantamount to an 
assertion that the discovery of the Linnsean class and order of any plant at once leads 
the inquirer to its genus, we cannot suppress our astonishment. 
Without the slightest predilection towards either system, we may here declare 
that the Linnsean method affords very little better clue to an acquaintance with 
genera, than if the genera were arranged atyhabetically in classes of similar length, 
with some common character affixed to each genus to determine its particular class. 
How, therefore, the classification of Linnaeus alone could direct any person to place 
a plant of whose generic appearance or character he had no previous knowledge in 
a genus which forms a part of any of the extensive Orders of that system, we 
confess ourselves wholly incapable of conceiving. 
It will be sufficient to remind the young gardener who may be induced, from 
motives which we will not endeavour to fathom, to believe that the Linnsean system 
is divested of all difficulties respecting nomenclature, what is his object in seeking 
to acquaint himself with either system. If it be (and we can imagine no other) 
to facilitate his acquirement of the names of plants, by an examination of their 
structure, a knowledge of terms is quite as indispensable in the one case as the 
other. That investigation of generic characters which can alone ultimately enable 
the student to decide upon a plant's name, is particularly requisite where only the 
Linnsean method is consulted ; and it need not be added that such characters 
comprise all the phrases used in the description of the Natural Orders. The 
comparative apprehension with which the Jussieuan system is regarded on this 
account, is, therefore, wholly groundless. 
We shall hereafter demonstrate that the mode of ascertaining to what Natural 
Order any plant belongs, is as regular, natural, and, when once the outlines of the 
arrangement are known, fully as easy as the way of finding its Linnsean Order. 
The barriers to be removed are, however, unquestionably more alarming to the 
beginner ; but if he will consent to be inducted into the science by a regular 
process, we have no fear of eventually being able to verify all our present 
asseverations. 
