300 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHANGES OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY, 
“ It is only when applied to purposes of practical utility, which are 
alone of real importance, and which ought constantly to be the objects 
of our pursuit, that botany can be of value; for it would have very 
little merit, and have no claims to our attention, if it were to be con¬ 
fined, as is too frequently the case, to the complete enumeration and 
minute description of plants, or even to their systematic arrangement, 
which, notwithstanding all the care and industry that have been 
bestowed upon it, seems to be still far removed from the perfection 
which is so much to be desired, and will, I have no doubt, be ulti¬ 
mately attained. The imperfection of the present nomenclature and 
classification is evinced not only by the multitude of synonyms, but 
also by innumerable cases in which the same plant is arranged in a 
different genus, by some botanists, from that which others have con¬ 
sidered it to be more appropriate. Hence arise that uncertainty and 
confusion which is so injurious to botany itself, and so inconvenient to 
those who study it: and hence we may reasonably infer that the pre¬ 
sent is not entirely satisfactory, even to those who are the most compe¬ 
tent authorities upon the subject. Although Linnaeus classed the 
whole vegetable kingdom into fifty-seven natural orders, they have 
since been increased to the number of two hundred and twenty-nine , 
some of which have been again divided into tribes, sections, and sub¬ 
orders ; while there are thirty-four orders, each of which contain only 
two genera, and about as many other orders comprising only a single 
genus, and in some cases a genus which has but one species. While 
some plants, like the mignionette, the pomegranate, and the Cohcea 
scandens, appear to be thus unsociable, there are others which, notwith¬ 
standing all their dissimilarities, are classed together; and the elm, 
the hop, the fig, and the nettle, are included by Jussieu in the same 
order, and according to what is called a natural arrangement. Accord¬ 
ing to another classification, the elm belongs to the order Ulmidece ; the 
fig, to the Artocarpece; and the hop, with the nettle, to the U?'ticece. 
Classification is the more important, because plants which are similar 
in their characters are so likewise in their qualities, and ought to be 
arranged in such a manner as to facilitate the investigation by analogy. 
The advantages to be derived from that analogy would of themselves 
offer a sufficient recommendation to the study of botany, which is also 
of extreme utility in establishing those precise and accurate definitions 
by which each plant may be recognised, and may also be effectually 
distinguised from every other. The study must, however, be pursued 
with reference to some practical object, without which it becomes unin¬ 
teresting to ourselves, and unprofitable to others,” 
