486 
CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 
and the fear of 44 allusion to living authors ” seems to have converted his 44 literary 
spear ” into what he might esteem merely a peaceful pruning-hook. 
As Mr. Lees has not attempted to reply to my paper, I shall only remark on 
what I deem his misapprehensions. He seems to have fallen into the error of 
supposing that the advocates of the more extensive cultivation of the natural 
system condemn the system of Linnaeus per se; but nothing can be more 
erroneous; they can appreciate, and admit in their writings, the simplicity and 
adaptation of the Linnasan system; they respect and admire its great and 
philosophic inventor; and are ready to allow that it has been a most powerful 
means of advancing the pursuit of Botany. But this is not the question ; it is 
not who has invented the artificial system ? or what has it done ? The inquiry 
ought to be, is it adapted to the requirements of the advanced state of the science 
of Botany at the present day ? This is the question, I think every one will 
allow, to which attention ought to be directed, and which formed the basis of the 
remarks I made in your Journal a month or two since (p. 175). 
No one was more perfectly aware of the deficiencies of his system than Lin¬ 
naeus himself. He asserted, in his writings, that the great end and aim of every 
botanist must be the arrangement of plants according to their natural relations 
and affinities. He attempted this great work himself, in his Fragments of a 
Natural System ; and there can be little doubt that sincere would be his regret, 
if he could lift his head from the grave, to see men calling themselves his 
disciples upholding his imperfect and artificial system as the acme of botanical 
wisdom. 
Mr. Lees has repeated his assertion that the rejection of the Linnasan system 
by botanists is 44 unphilosophical.” If the endeavour to advance the knowledge 
of the structure or affinities of plants; to direct the mind to the laws that regulate 
the distribution of plants over the globe; to enlarge the sphere of botanical 
knowledge by presenting to the student groups instead of individuals; to exercise 
the highest powers of observation by a minute attention to structural analogies, 
be 44 unphilosophical,” then I must admit that botanists, in insisting on the 
adoption of the natural system and the rejection of the Linnsean, must plead 
guilty to the charge of Mr. Lees. 
But those who admire and advocate the Linnsean should, in fairness, recollect 
that it is not rejected because it has no merits, but because as a system it has 
been superseded. The books written to explain that system are condemned 
because the authors have failed in giving a correct view of the science of Botany. 
If the system be found easier as a means of analysis, let it be adopted by those 
who find it so; but those who use it for this purpose, must submit to be told 
that that is not the ultimate end of Botany; and if they remain satisfied 
with it, they must submit to the 44 implication of being trifling and superficial 
