298 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHANGES OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 
or for want of a thorough knowledge of its details, is perhaps uncertain ; 
but it is quite clear that the rules laid down by Jussieu for identifying 
the genera and types of the orders instituted by himself, are not so 
definite as that ef he who runs may read/’ otherwise there could not 
be two opinions respecting any one perfect plant. But the distinctions 
between genera, and even between some of the orders, when differen¬ 
tially considered, are so slight, that there is no wonder that discrepan¬ 
cies occur amons; botanical authors. 
This indefinite character of the new system has induced several 
practical botanists to conceive that a yet more simple and perfect 
natural system may be devised than that of Jussieu, which would 
render the study of the science much more easy and agreeable. When 
the author of the natural system was employed in its arrangement, he 
sometimes met with a tribe of plants which he considered might have 
formed a vast genus , rather than a separate order; and several bota¬ 
nists of the present day begin to perceive that making the system less 
diffuse would be an improvement. 
We quote with much pleasure what Professor Lindley has written 
on this subject in his Introduction to Botany,” p. 320. as we believe 
it evinces a very just view of the present state of the science. 
“ Properly speaking, this system” (the Jussieuan) is subject to 
no kind of artificial arrangement: it consists of certain groups called 
natural orders, all of which are, or should be, independent of each 
other, and the characters of which are derived indifferently from every 
part of the plant. But as it would be extremely embarrassing to the 
student to acquire a just notion of these groups, unless some mode were 
devised of analysing their characters, several plans have been invented 
by which the groups have been reduced to a sort of artificial arrange¬ 
ment, with greater or less violence to their mutual affinities. As all 
these plans must, as has been shown, necessarily be linear, the real 
affinities of plants must be very imperfectly indicated by them; they 
are, therefore, of no value whatever, except for the purpose of facilitat¬ 
ing investigation. They must be understood to form no part of what 
must be strictly called the natural system ; they may be varied at plea¬ 
sure, according to the ingenuity of the botanist; and that will be the 
best which is most facile, and which at the same time offers the fewest 
interruptions to the series of mutual relations. At present, I think,” 
continues the Professor, “ there are few botanists who will deny that 
they are all extremely defective ; and that one of the greatest services 
that could be rendered to systematic botany, would be to devise some 
scheme by which the orders could be better and more naturally 
arranged under their primary classes. Whoever does this, will have to 
