
          14.  You must be aware that it is owing to the neglect of these distinctions
or graduations of knowledge that do many errors have crept in Botany, and
that so many plants have either different names altho' similar, or go under
the same nae altho really dissimilar.

15.  Botanical criticism is a peculiar branch of Botany, it becomes of high
importance when the Science advances, and requires a sound judgment with
a great share of liberality, divested of prejudice, and systematic inference.

16.  Liberality is needful to it, because without it the judgement becomes
warped and distored.  Some Botanists rely on this or that authority, quote
this or that man, and thus bowing to Idols of their own making, they become
Heathens and pagans! in Botany.

17.  Others are the Skeptics & freethinkers of Botany, they rely on no one,
believe only what they see, whetherseen ill or well, and reject or distrust
whatever does not agree with their system or plan or theories.

18.  Not so with the Liberal Botanists, they consult & quote all the 
Authorities, and evince their impartiality and sense of justice:  while at the 
same time they classify the knowledge thus acquired & converged, according
to the degree of accuracy it displays.

19.  I hope that you will neither be a Pagan nor a Skeptic in Botany, but a
Liberal writer.  The least that is expected of you, is to see you imitate Decandole
in two essential points of criticism.  1.  In adding to the well known
plants, those non satis nota or not well known, and the doubtful or obscure
2.  In quoting the years of publication of N.G. and N. Sp. to as to ascertain &
fix the priority and just claims of each author.  [added:then you will say Peltandra Raf
1819.  Lecontea T, 1824 Rensalaria Beck 1833]

20.  I should like also to see in your general flora, good tabular views
of synonyms to all extensive genera, and a tabular view of all doubtful
& shifting genera, with dates and authorities.

21.  Whatever be your mode of thinking respecting genera & species, it
must be obvious that these points are needful or indispensable as [crossed out:points of]
botanical datas and facts that ought to be compared, and thus presented in
the best mode to the future Enquirers.

22.  Enquirers on Botanical Writers & their labours are endless, but in every
general flora there ought to be a reference of Authors & Works.  Some prefer
the Alphabetical Order, but the Chronological Roder has by far more advantages,
and the mode of it used by Adanson in 1759 is by far the best, as it gives
the number of plants & figures published by each author.

23.  Classification has always been the most disputed branch of Botany.
After long struggle Linneus fixed the mode of forming species & genera;
but he failed in Orders & Classes.  [crossed out:After his system] His sexual system
prevailed for nearly a century, but now is giving way at last to the natural
method, which seeks to fix the Classes, Orders & families.

24.  If you compare the labours of Adanson, Jussieu, Necker, Scopoli,
Lamark, Decandolle, Agardh, Lindlay & my own upon this interesting
theme, you will become convinced that we are far from having yet a proper
fixed and unalterable Natural Method.  Since every writer has his own or
modifies the whole, but the bases of this method are yet well known.
        