28 
PRELIMINARY TREATISE. 
number of grades at which a new division shall com- 
mence will he a matter of discretion and not of fact, and in 
truth of very little importance. 11. That the distinction of 
groups is of high value in shewing the harmony of the crea- 
tion, hut the basis of botanical labours is the discrimination 
of individual kinds. 12. That whatever names we may give 
to subdivisions, if one subdivision designates individuality, 
another cannot designate it also. 13. That the older botanists 
thought to designate individuality by the subdivision named 
species, and Jussieu said that in the discrimination of species 
the fundamental labour of the botanist consisted. 14. That 
it has since appeared by the further investigation of species, 
and by the experiments of horticulture, that in some very ex- 
tensive* genera the species are diversities of one individual, 
capable of breeding together and frequently of producing fer- 
tile offspring, the fertility seeming to depend more on the con- 
stitutional, than the closer botanical, affinity of the parents ; 
and that the species so proved to be one have the several 
diversities by which botanists have usually distinguished 
species from each other. 15. It follows, therefore, that in- 
dividuality does not reside in the division named species by 
botanists, but in a higher division usually named genera. 
16. That the individuality of other species, distinguished by 
like features, must fall with those whose individuality has 
been disproved. 17. That as individuality is proved to re- 
side in the division usually called genera, it must reside there 
uniformly. 18. That there are but two ways of rectifying 
the great error of older botanists, either to confine the name 
genus to the point of individuality, or to change the whole 
nomenclature, and call the entire mass of genera (requiring, 
as they do, in either case, reformation in many instances), 
species, and the mass of species permanent varieties. 19. 
That the latter mode of proceeding would produce infinite 
disturbance, whereas the former requires nothing but the 
clear understanding and declaration of a fact, that indivi- 
duality in the botanical divisions resides in the genus. 20. 
That there is no essential difference between species and per- 
* Crinum, Hippeastruin, Gladiolus, Rosa, Pelargonium, Calceolaria, &c. If 
any one shall assert that Hippeastrum and Habranthus are not separate genera, 
but two species of one genus, and their respective species only varieties, the as- 
sertion is merely a different application of terms, but he who asserts it must con- 
cede on the other hand by analogy, that there is in that case only one species of 
rose, pelargonium, &c and that their reputed species are only varieties. 
