LINNAN AND NATURAL ARRANGEMENTS OF PLANTS. 
177 
practical application would not be much easier than the analytical tables of the 
F rench botanists. 
But granting that the Linnsean system enables a person to find the name of a 
plant easier than the natural system; is this the ultimatum of the science of 
Botany ? or is this the only delightful part of the study of Botany ? that for the 
sake of it the system of Linnaeus, although wholly inadequate to the purposes of 
science, must not be condemned? It may be pleasant to run about the hills and 
vales of our own islands, and find a name for every blade and tiny weed that springs 
beneath our feet; but is it not just as pleasant, or much more so, to walk into our 
gardens, nursery-grounds, or green-houses, and be able to know something of those 
provisions in the vegetable kingdom which the Creator has made for other parts of 
the world besides our own ? By studying Botany on the natural system we 
may do this. We need not restrict our observations to plants indigenous to our 
own soil, but may look upon the vegetable world as a whole, and instead of 
learning the name and properties of a single plant, as by the Linnsean system, we 
may, with the same labour, ascertain the structure and properties of a group of 
plants, every individual of which may be recognised, from whatever part of the 
world it may come. Now, if the name, structure, and properties of a family of 
plants can be ascertained as easily by the natural system as the same particulars 
of an individual plant by the Linnsean, and this information is as interesting in 
the one case as in the other (the greater utility of the former cannot be doubted), 
on what grounds can the latter system be said to offer 44 greater facilities for 
tempting votaries to the temple of Flora V* 
Another objection to the Linnsean system, is, that its advocates belong to a 
school whose views are very far behind the advance made by the science of 
Botany. Dr. Bindley observes, of the books written by them, that 44 the 
technical language in which these works are written is far from accurate; terms 
are applied in them vaguely and erroneously, and they so abound with mis¬ 
takes, most of which are at variance with all correct notions of the structure of 
plants, that they are totally unfit to be placed in the hands of students.” Now 
if these charges are true, and no one who makes the science of Botany a study 
can doubt it, it must be admitted, as a fair conclusion, that the system which 
lies under them is 44 prejudicial to the advancement of the science of Botany.” 
No doubt many of the books of Linnsean botanists are written in a pleasing 
style, and are calculated to allure to the study of Botany; but this arises from 
the authors of the works, and not from the system they are intended to explain. 
Till within the last few years these were the only books that could be put into 
the hands of a student, and before that time it was undoubtedly better that they 
should be studied than none at all. But now that we have books explaining 
the natural system, and adapted to the advanced state of the science, it is surely 
2 B 
yol. hi.—NO. XIX. 
