LINDLEYS VEGETABLE KINGDOM. 
301 
petals are separated ; as in Roseworts, Rham- 
nads, Onagrads, &c. On the other hand, when 
the stamens, which are indispensable organs, 
adhere to the petals, the latter are more con- 
stantly present, as in Figworts, Acanthads, 
Nightshades, &c." — Tntrod. xxvi. xxvii. 
It will be seen by this portion of the intro- 
duction, that a foundation is laid for a sound 
practical knowledge of systematic botany, but 
that it will take considerable time to become 
master of even the rudiments. In our opinion, 
the system itself, improved as it is by Professor 
Lindley, is but in its infancy, and much has yet 
to be done. Nor are we to forget that Linnaeus, 
who saw the deficiency of his first labour, com- 
menced the task of forming a natural, as well as 
his artificial, or Linnsean, system ; so that the 
honour of founding the natural orders is not to 
be snatched from the great master-mind alto- 
gether. The author of The Vegetable Kingdom 
does not omit a fair mention of the originator. 
He says, in his introduction : — 
" When Linnaeus attempted to form a Natural 
System, he merely threw together such genera 
as lie knew into 67 groups, which he called 
Fragments, and which were equivalent to the 
Natural Orders of Modern Botany. Jussieu 
advanced a step further, by forming 15 Classes, 
under which he placed 100 Natural Orders. 
At a later period the name Class was reserved 
for the three great divisions of Acotyledons, 
Monocotyledons, and Dicotyledons ; and the 
Orders were collected into smaller groups 
called Sub -classes ; and thus, by degrees the 
necessity of forming three grades of distinctive 
characters superior to genera was recognised. 
But our countryman, Dr. Robert Brown, whose 
sagacity is not the least remarkable part of his 
scientific character, long ago pointed out the 
insufficiency of even this amount of sub- 
division, and proposed the combination of Na- 
tural Orders into groups intermediate between 
Orders and Sub-classes. The necessity of this 
measure is now universally acknowledged ; 
attempts have been made for some years, by va- 
rious Botanists, to work out the problem ; and I 
think it must be conceded that a real advance 
lias thus been made, by the efforts of various 
independent observers, to the accomplishment 
of so very desirable an object. To such attempts 
the- present work is an addition." — P. xxix. 
There can be no question but that the author 
has done much to reconcile the admirers of 
Linnseus to the more modern and comprehen- 
sive system ; that he has done no small ser- 
vice in removing difficulties and reconciling 
differences ; and the great question at issue 
between the two great parties in the botanical 
world is to be described in few words — the one 
decides all things by that which can only be 
got at in particular seasons ; the other, by 
: ffinitics that are to be found at all times, any 
of which, in many cases, would enable us to 
assign a totally strange plant to the family to 
which it belongs, and, perhaps, to the very 
branch of its family. But there is one evi- 
dence of family connexion that must not be 
lost sight of, as it is unequivocal, and, in prac- 
tical gardening, comes daily under our notice. 
We allude to the capacity of fertilization; and 
when one presumed species will fertilize with 
another, and the produce will perfect its seed, 
we have scarcely any right to view them as of 
distinct genera. They may be very unlike 
each other in habit, in locality, in colour, and 
in many other respects, but, looking at nature 
throughout, they can only be regarded as 
members of the same large family. A good 
deal of the introduction to this volume is 
occupied in the discussion of the question 
which has been long and often mooted in the 
animal as well as vegetable kingdom, the diffi- 
culty of drawing a line of demarcation between 
some of the natural orders. On this subject 
the author observes : — 
"It may be, and certainly is in some measure, 
true, that insuperable difficulties are, in the 
present state of our knowledge, opposed to 
strict definitions of Natural Orders, and a 
fortiori of their Alliances, &c. But that is no 
reason why we should not endeavour to render 
their distinctive characters as precise as the 
nature of the subject will permit. Vague 
distinctions, which are at once the bane and 
opprobrium of Natural History, are so repul- 
sive to the understanding as to deter the mass 
of mankind from giving it their attentive 
study. And it is not too much to assert that 
this vagueness arises more frequently out of 
the prejudices or mistiness of the Naturalist's 
own mind than out of things themselves. It 
will constantly happen that two groups may 
stand, by common consent, in the nearest con- 
ceivable relation to each other : it is quite 
possible, by one way of arranging them, to 
render their distinctions nugatory, and by 
another, clear and precise. Now, if the sup- 
posed groups are really as closely allied, as for 
this argument we may assume them to be, it 
can be of no possible importance, theoretically, 
whether a given Genus or Order is placed in 
the one or the other. The near consanguinity 
of the two does away with all importance in 
such a case. In Physical Geography it is of 
no consequence whether London is stationed 
in Middlesex or Surrey ; and in like manner, 
in Theoretical Botany, the place of a given 
Order may be equally indifferent. But it may 
be of great consequence practically, because 
a definition of limits may be possible or not, 
according to the arrangement. For example, 
let us take the Solanal and Bignonial Alliances. 
These touch at the Orders of Nightshades and 
Figworts respectively. If Nightshades are 
x 2 
