LINDLEY S VEGETABLE KINGDOM. 
303 
the stem, leaves, and flowers, the most highly 
developed, and most easily examined parts of 
vegetation ; a Botanist, therefore, prefers to 
examine the stem, the flower, or the leaf of a 
plant, in order to determine whether it is a 
Monoeotyledon or a Dicotyledon, and rarely 
finds it necessary to anatomize the seed. 
" The presence or absence of albumen, the 
structure of the embryo, the position of the 
seeds or ovules, the nature of the fruit, the 
modifications of the flower, are not to be 
brought forward as other difficult points 
peculiar to the study of the Natural System, 
because, whatever system is followed, the stu- 
dent must make himself acquainted with such 
facts, for the purpose of determining genera. 
The common Toad-flax cannot be discovered 
by its characters in any book of Botany, with- 
out the greater part of this kind of inquiry 
being gone through. 
" In the determination of genera, however, 
facility is entirely on the side of the Natural 
System. Jussieu has well remarked, ' that 
whatever trouble is experienced in remember- 
ing, or applying the characters of Natural 
Orders, is more than compensated for by the 
facility of determining genera, the characters 
of which are simple in proportion as those of 
Orders are complicated. The reverse takes 
place in arbitrary arrangements, where the 
distinctions of classes and sections are ex- 
tremely simple and easy to remember, while 
those of genera are in proportion numerous 
and complicated.' 
" But really all considerations of difficulty 
ought to be put aside, when it is remembered 
how much more satisfactory are the results to 
which we are brought by the study of Nature 
philosophically, than those which can possibly 
be derived from the most ingenious empirical 
mode of investigation." 
These it seems were the motives for publish- 
ing the Introduction to the Natural System 
of Botany in 1830, which may be regarded 
as the firit of this work, and the author avows 
that it was written in illustration of the 
popular system of De Candolle ; " but," he 
says, "daily experienoeshowed the insufficiency 
of that system, and the necessity of forming 
subdivisions of the primary groups of plants, 
higher than their so-called natural orders, 
became so apparent as to lead to serious at- 
tempts to carry out a plan of alliances, in imi- 
tation of a few continental writers." These 
attempts were embodied in a second edition of 
the work, under the title of -1 Natural Sys- 
tem of Botany. A considerable portion of 
the preface in the present volume goes to the 
admission that the classification in the second 
work was not like -that of the first, and thfl 
Professor takes credit for not persevering in 
error ; but it must be remembered that it 
was these errors alone that gave the opponents 
of the then called Natural System, the oppor- 
tunity of criticizing, and even condemning it. 
If the arrangements so generally complained 
of have been changed, it is only fair to pre- 
sume that those who condemned before will 
recognise that change ; nobody complained of 
the Natural System as it might be, they only 
condemned it as it rvas. But it has been 
doomed to further changes. The volume 
before us is the third edition, and the title 
is more comprehensive. The arrangements 
are again changed ; and in anticipation of the 
critical reader's conclusion, the author says, 
" he is not conscious of having ever pretended 
that it even approached permanency." Perhaps 
not, but authors are nevertheless supposed to 
mean what they write, and therefore one does 
not look for a pretence or a declaration to such 
effect. However, let the author speak for 
himself: he says, — 
" In fact, there is no such thing as stability 
in these matters. Consistency is but another 
name for obstinacy. All things are under- 
going incessant change. Every science is in 
a state of progression, and of all others the 
sciences of observation most so. Since 1836 
the views of the Author have, -of course, been 
altered in some respects, although they have 
experienced but little modification in others. 
This is inevitable in such a science as that of 
Systematic Botany, where the discovery of a 
few new facts or half a dozen fresh genera 
may instantly change the point of view from 
which a given object is observed. The Author 
cannot regard perseverance in error com- 
mendable, for the sake of what is idly called 
consistency ; he would rather see false views 
corrected as the proof of their error arises. 
His object, and, he thinks he may say that of 
every one else who has turned his attention 
to this question of late, has not been to esta- 
blish a system of his own, which shall be 
immutable, but to contribute to the extent of 
his ability toward that end. lie indeed must 
be a very presumptuous person, having a 
microscopically small acquaintance with his 
subject, who should even dream of being able 
to accomplish such a purpose. All that wc 
can do is to throw our pebbles upon the heap, 
which shall hereafter, when they have suffi- 
ciently accumulated, become the landmark of 
Systematical Botany." 
It were to be wished that matters of differ- 
ence could be discussed temperately, because 
it might be truly said then, that we should 
live and learn ; but uncourteous condemnation 
frequently shuts the door against improvement, 
and embarrasses the man who lays a good 
foundation, and might, as in the case of Pro- 
fessor Liiulley, alter and improve the super- 
structure. In this case the work is almost 
