The vegetable SYSTEM. 
45 
As I afHrm this Author to have followed Nature more than any 
other, it will be worth while to fhew in a few words, his fanlts as 
they appear to me, and his fuperior merit. Here I muft obferve, in 
general, that though he has made natural Clafies, he did not take fuf- 
ficient pains to join them naturally : his Syftem prevented that in fome; 
but others might eafily have been better ranged together. 
His nine firft Clafles feem all good, the yth is mixed a little, 
and fo is the iith, and the five following. Mofi; part of the iSth 
is very well, the 20th and 2ifi: are excellent, the 23d and apth 
very well. There remain only for the much mixed Clafies the 10th, 
lyth, and 19th; and even in thefe there are excellent orders. 
The Bacciferous appears to be one of the worfi; : two Claffes of 
his Trees are good, and the two laft, though with a few improper 
Plants. Linn^us thinks fit to allow him but twelve natural Claf- 
fes j the reft he calls extremely mixed : but is this fair Shall two 
or three improper Plants make us condemn an otherwife natural or- 
der ? Let it be faid to this worthy Man’s praife, that wherever the 
beft Authors have attempted natural Clafibs, they plainly follow his 
footfteps, tho’ they have not ingenuity enough to own it. I am 
fure the more I ftudy the Book of Nature, the higher opinion I 
conceive of PvAY. His fault was tying himfelf down too rigidly to 
a fyftem, which feparated his Clafies. It were well if fucceeding 
Authors erred only this way; but they, as we fhall foon fee, floun- 
ced, deeper : many not only feparated their Clafies, but their Genuf- 
es too. True it is, that Ray’s Genufes and Species are not fuf- 
ficiently deferibed : this talk was referved for that excellent Botanift 
Linn>^us ; and is his mafter-piece. Yet I muft exprefs a wifii, 
that in his fpecifical deferiptions he had followed a little more our 
worthy Countryman. Linnaeus’s concifenefs is productive of as 
much confufion as Ray’s prolixty. I am forry to be forced to own be- 
fore I quit this learned Man, that he did not futficiently acknowledge 
the afiTiftance he had from Morrison. We may eafily trace in him 
many of that Author’s Clafies, though greatly improved. It would in 
no wife have lefiened his merit to have named his Author ; and, though 
perhaps Morrison complained with too much virulence; it was 
not without foundation. But thefe are trifling imperfeeftions, to 
VoL. 11 . N which 
