Y 
( 30? ) 
LETTER XXXII. 
JULY. 
OUR objection to this Sexual Syftem. 
of Linnaeus, carries more weight upon 
reflection, than might, at firft, be fappofed. 
The lady who afked the queftion, " whether 
women may be inftru6ted in the modern 
Syftem of Botany, confidently with female 
delicacy?" was accufed of ridiculous pru- 
dery; neverthelefs, if me had propofed the 
queftion to me, I fhould certainly have an- 
fwered " They cannot." 
The late Dr. Hope, ProfefTor of Botany 
at Edinburgh, was naturally a very modeft 
man, I have frequently feen him embar- 
raffed under the neceffity of explaining the 
analogy between the parts of generation in 
plants and animals, to an audience of young 
pupils. How much greater would have been 
his embarraflment, if his pupils had been 
females ! It is true, the terms are Latin, 
or of Latin derivation; and it is alfo true, 
that there is nothing indecent in their lite- 
ral meaning 5 but, ,unlefs we explain their 
analogy, the Sexual Syftem does not appear, 
u 2 The 
