PLANT. 
dowed with the fame form, and with locomotion, are ani¬ 
mals; thofe which have the fame form, without locomo¬ 
tion, are vegetables ; and thofe which have a diverfity of 
form are minerals.” To this Linnaeus well objects, the 
perfect regularity of form in cryftals of the fame fpecies, 
and the want of locomotion in feveral animals. 
4. Tournefort, in his Iiagoge, 54, fays, “ A plant is an 
organic body, always furnifhed with roots, perhaps always 
with feeds, and almoft always with leaves, flowers, and 
Items.” 
5. Alfton has defined vegetables as nourifhed by pores . 
fituated in their external l'urface, animals by veflels in 
their internal one. 
6. Linnaeus, in Phil. Bot. 1, has given the moll neat, 
and generally-approved, definition. “ Stones grow. Ve¬ 
getables grow and live. Animals grow, live, and feel.” 
Difficulties attend all thefe pofitions. The want of 
fenfation in vegetables cannot be demonftrated, nor are 
appearances to the contrary wanting; fo that it can never 
ferve for a praClical mode of difcrimination, nor as a bafis 
for any philofophical argument. 
7. Mirbel, in his Traite d’Anatomie et de Phyfiologie 
Vegetale, has remarked, “ that plants alone have a power 
of deriving nourifhment though not indeed exclufively, 
from inorganic matter, mere earths, falts, or airs; fub- 
ftances certainly incapable of fervingas food for any ani¬ 
mals, the latter only feeding on what is or has been or¬ 
ganized matter, either of a vegetable or animal nature. 
So that it fhould feem to be the office of vegetable life 
alone to transform dead matter into organized living bo¬ 
dies.” To this we can find no exception. However in¬ 
convenient, and indeed impoffible to be ufed, as a practical 
teft, it appears to be a found philofophical diftinCtion be¬ 
tween the animal and vegetable kingdoms. The foffil or 
mineral kingdom is effentially diftinguifhed from both, 
by the want of an organized ftrufture, developed and in- 
creafed by abforption; and of a vital principle, eflential 
to the performance of all the functions on which their 
health, growth, and propagation, depend. 
Under the article Botany, vol. iii. p. 289-94, we have 
detailed the different claffifications of plants which were 
at length fuperfeded by that of the immortal Linnaeus, 
whofe fyftem is followed, with very little variation, not 
only in the botanical articles, but in the whole range of 
natural hiftory, by the editors of this work. 
The diffidenceof Linnaeus as to attempting definitions 
of his natural orders, was by no means the character of 
the French fchool of botany, which arofe in oppofition to 
him. The fyftem of the great and excellent Tournefort 
being found little capable of fuftaining itfelf againft the 
overwhelming abundance of new acquisitions, and againft 
the brilliant light dawning from the north, which fliowed 
but too clearly the imperfections of this and all other 
fyftems that had been contrived, had no chance of being 
defended in oppofition to its rival. Vaillant was never 
forgiven for having even fuppofed it could be amended, 
and efpecially for having, by his aflertion of the fexual 
doCtrine, contributed to lay the foundation of a rival 
fchool. 
Bernard de Juffieu, indeed, the father of the French 
botanifts in this department, poflefled all the caution and 
diffidence of a man who knew too much to be ignorant 
of the difficulties of his enterprife. He was, moreover, 
aware of the merits of Linnaeus, and difpofed to allow 
them. Though he had for many years ftudied the fub- 
jeCl, and been widely converfant with the vegetable king¬ 
dom, it was not before the year 1759, when he w-as called 
upon, as Profeflor of Botany, to arrange the royal garden 
at Trianon, that he ventured to give any publicity to the 
natural fyftem he had fo long been projecting. What 
this was may be feen by his learned nephew’s Genera 
Piantarum, which we fliall prefently quote. 
Adanfon, meanwhile, a genius of a more excentric and 
intrepid kind, having, as he tells us, during his herbori- 
zalions at Senegal, found the infufficieney of the fyftems 
603 
of Tournefort and Linnaeus, gavehimfelf to the ftudy of 
natural arrangement. Having conceived that Linnaeus 
flighted his correfpondence, his ardent mind, ftimulated 
by vanity and ambition, affumed an air of petulant hofti- 
lity to that great man. An inherent love of paradox and 
affeflation prompted him, in the firft place, to exalt the 
artificial fyftem of Tournefort, as fuch, above that of Lin¬ 
naeus, whofe whole plan of botanical ftudy and inflec¬ 
tion, whether with regard to principles or execution, fci- 
ence or nomenclature, he rtudioufly, and without any re- 
ferve, contemns and vilifies. Alfertions coft him no¬ 
thing. He fpeaks of Ray as a judicious compiler, but no 
great botanift; and, as if neither Linnaeus nor any one 
elfe had attempted any thing on the fubjeCf, this viva¬ 
cious Frenchman brings forward his own natural fyftem, 
with an eafy grace, not as a modeft or imperfeCl eflay, but 
as an original and complete performance, calculated <c to 
fuperfede all other fyftems, as comprehending the fum of 
all botanical knowledge.” It belongs not to us to criti- 
cife his novel plan of orthography, which his country¬ 
men have paffed over in filent difdain ; but we may com¬ 
plain of the additional difficulty which arifes from his 
arbitrary plan of nomenclature, which defies all prece¬ 
dent and authority, except what is inconvenient and ab- 
furd. Were it not for thefe contemptible airs and preju¬ 
dices, the learning, penetration, and ingenuity, of Adan¬ 
fon, would long ago have procured him that diftinguifhed 
rank amongft fyftematic botanifts to which he is doubt- 
lefs entitled. His book abounds with original and in- 
ftruCtive remarks; but his fyftem, formed on technical 
characters, mull neceffarily be fo far artificial, though it 
preferves abundance of natural combinations. By a An¬ 
gular but cafual coincidence, it confifts, like the Frag¬ 
ments of Linnaeus, of 58 Orders, or, as the author terms 
them, Families. Thele are given as mere lines of fepa- 
ration, fubdivided into 1615 lubordinate or fecondary di- 
vifions, equivalent to genera, embracing 18,000 known 
fpecies or varieties. They profefs to be difpofed in a na¬ 
tural feries, and form a table where their diftinCtive cha¬ 
racters range under the following heads. 
1. Name of each family. 
2. Leaves, their form and fituation : ftipules, tendrils, 
ftalks, &c. 
3. Sex of the flowers. 
4. Flowers, their fituation with refpeCt to the ovary, 
(that is, whether above or below the germen.) 
5. Corolla, its figure and fituation. 
6. Stamens, their number, fituation, and difk, (or what 
Linnaeus terms the receptacle of the flower.) 
7. Ovaries, (germens,) their number and difk. 
8 . Seeds, their number and fituation. 
Let any unprejudiced obferver fee how much of this is 
taken from even the artificial fyftem of Linnseus, and 
judge whether the main difference, of the leading cha¬ 
racters being derived from the herbage inftead of the fruc¬ 
tification, be an advantage in favour of Adanfon or not. 
Thofe who wifh for an idea of his nomenclature and or¬ 
thography, may take the firft feCtion of his Gramens, 
which he calls Alpijles, and make it out as they can, from 
fuch barbarous names as the following: Kornukopia, 
Narclus, Mihora, Sabfab, Kapriola , Nazia, Fatarus, Ste- 
lefuros, Abola, Vilfa, Kalamagrojlis, Apera, Valota, Stipa, 
Kielboul. Adanfon’s fyftem appeared in 1763 : but we 
have three other fyftems, or methods, to notice, before 
we come to the improved one of Juffieu, which feems to 
divide the opinions of the learned with that of Linnseus. 
Gleditch’s method was publifhedin 1764. His Claffes 
are the followings 
I. Thalamoftemonis. Stamens on the receptacle. 
II. Petaloftemonis. -on the corolla. 
III. Calycoltemonis. -on the calyx. 
IV. Styloftemonis. —-on the ftyle. 
V. Cryptoftemonis. -— inconfpicuous. 
Gleditfch had evidently acquired fome imperfeCl idea of 
the 
