CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 
“ exploded” system, which is “ every where repudiated/’ has really, according to 
Dr. Lindley’s dictum , interfered with the public good ?* The student of the 
natural system may affirm this if he pleases, but I still contend that his constant 
assumption and querulous repetition of the injurious tendency of the Linnsean 
system is “ unphilosophical,” since it is no sound argument that because on 
certain points the Linnsean system may be defective, therefore the natural system 
must be its superior in all. Has the natural system no hope of success unless 
it break ground by constantly impugning the Linnsean ? It is indeed passing 
strange that while Dr. Lindley affirms that the latter is “ repudiated every 
where,” and Mr. Lankester argues that it is “ injurious,” and has therefore 
been <c exploded,” both these gentlemen should think and act as if they had a 
living and not a dead Lion at their feet. This seems incomprehensible, unless 
Mr. Lankester has let the Cat out when he hints that there is a “ want of 
demand” for the works on the natural system. Be this as it may, something 
seems wrong; and I am led to infer, that in practice the disciples of the natural 
system find it rather unmanageable; for even Mr. Lankester appears to shrink 
from “ the hills and vales of our own island,” and rather unbotanically—he will 
excuse me for saying so—talks disparagingly of the “ tiny weed that springs 
beneath our feet.” lie seems to prefer the grander and more specious groups 
of the green-house and conservatory, where I agree with him he will find the 
system he espouses of most service. 
If you like to print what I have written above—which is all the reply I feel 
disposed to make—in the Correspondence or Criticism of The Naturalist, you 
are at perfect liberty to do so. I have no time at present to enter into an exten¬ 
sive review of the natural system; and if I had, it would take up more room, 
probably, than you could spare, and heartily tire the majority of your readers 
before the inquiry was terminated. You see I 'say not a word against the 
natural system—I leave it to stand or make its w r ay on its own merits, I admire 
the energy of its champions, and applaud their untiring researches into structure 
and affinities ; but I must reprehend the tone of contempt in which they almost 
invariably allude to those botanists who, like Dr. Johnston, in his interesting 
and excellent Flora of Berwick , still presume to hope that the Linnsean system 
will yet continue something more than one of those nonentities of which all but 
the semblance of its existence has passed away. I do: not say that this lan¬ 
guage is applied personally , but the implication is perpetually displayed—that 
a system so trifling and superficial as we are thus, vi et armis , compelled to 
suppose the Linnsean to be, can only be supported by trifling and superficial 
observers. This mode of conducting the argument is uncourteous, and has the 
See Syn. Brit. Flora , Preface, p. vii. 
