MEMOIR OE RAY. 
67 
only be attained by the exercise of the higher facul- 
ties. Hence he excelled both as a faithful describer 
of species and a framer of systems. In comparing 
the latter with the more celebrated method of Lin- 
naeus, it ought to be borne in mind that the two 
systematists had, in a great measure, different ob- 
jects in view ; and that if our countryman was least 
successful, he failed in a more difficult object than 
that to which the other so admirably attained. Lin- 
naeus adopted an artificial system, of which the only 
recommendation is the ease with which it enables 
students to ascertain the names of plants. Desir- 
ous that this knowledge should not be obtained in 
an empirical manner, Ray attempted to follow the 
divisions of nature ; and if he could not trace the 
Ariadnean thread, he failed in a purpose which has 
not yet been fully accomplished. Linnaeus was 
deeply indebted to Ray’s various writings, particu- 
larly in his arrangement of animals ; and a careful 
perusal of the Synopsis Quadrupedum, and the 
early editions of the System of Nature, will lead to 
the wish that the obligation had been more warmly 
acknowledged. Had not Ray and his cotempora- 
ries performed the office of pioneers in opening a 
way for the illustrious Swede, the energies of his 
comprehensive mind might have been engrossed 
with the subordinate details of science, and his 
progress obstructed to that commanding elevation 
which he now occupies. 
Fully to appreciate Ray’s merits, we must not 
