at Madras as an antiscorbutic, * to have been the same species of Cactus: but fortunately the Kew nopal is not found to be more subject to gangrene than any other succulent plant. The next malady is galls of various sorts; and then follow diseases of the skin, as honey-dews, leprosy, &c. The falling of the leaf in deciduous trees, the Doctor regards as a natural sloughing, or an effort of the plant to throw off the diseased parts, the branches and buds remaining healthy. This explanation he considers as simple and evident.' It certainly is so; but to us it appears, that while the cause of the disease in the leaves is left unexplained, the difficulty in accounting for the fall of the leaf has, at most, been only one degree removed.

Though Dr Smith admits that some species of animals may probably have been exterminated,' he does not think that any species of plant has been lost. The numerous vegetable impressions and casts, therefore, found in the quarries of this and other countries, and well known by the name of petrifactions, must all have existing prototypes in the world at present, although very few of these indeed have been discovered. We may add, that we are confident that the prototypes of most of those found in the argillaceous schistus, limestone, and sandstone of the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, are not plants now indigenous to Britain, nor, it is believed, to Europe. Willdenow, and some other botanists, however, differ from our author, and are of opinion, that the originals of some species of fossil plants have been as completely lost as those of the unknown fossil animals.

The author then proceeds to the systematical arrangement of plants; natural and artificial methods; nomenclature,' &c. Here we have short accounts of the methods of Casalpinus, of Tourneforte, and others, down to the time of Linnæus. He it was, who first drew a correct line of distinction between natural and artificial arrangements. It is owing chiefly to not having attended to this distinction, that several eminent writers have found fault with the Swedish naturalist. Mr Smellie not only laughs to scorn the notion of sexes in plants, but ridicules the whole Systema as a mere catalogue ;

I 3

* A single plant of the nopal was at first transmitted to India by Sir Joseph Banks, with a view to the culture of the cochineal insect. This project failed; but Dr Anderson, physician-general at Madras, discovered that the plant was calculated to serve a much more important purpose, in preventing and curing scurvy. It acts by no specific virtue, but like any other fresh vegetable. It possesses, however, the very desirable property of keeping quite fresh during the longest cruises, if it be merely preserved from wet, and be hung up where there is a circulation of air. It is eaten either as a sallad, or in soups. Most of his Majesty's ships on the India stations are now regularly supplied with it.

logue; and Lord Kames talks so lightly of this great work as to say, that he knows not for what purpose it may have been formed, unless to tell us in what part of Linnæus's writings an animal or a plant is to be found arranged! In the following passage, the utility of the Linnean method is, we think, very modestly but satisfactorily vindicated.

*

• Linnæus considered the natural affinities of plants as the most important and interesting branch of systematical botany aware, however, that a natural classification was scarcely ever to be completely discovered, and that, if discovered, it would probably be too difficult for common use, he contrived an artificial system, by which plants might conveniently be arranged, like words in a dictionary, so as to be most readily found. If all the words of a language could be disposed according to their abstract derivations, or grammatical affinities, such a performance might be very instructive to a philosopher, but would prove of little service to a young scholar; nor has it ever been mentioned as any objection to the use of a dictionary, that words of very different meanings, if formed of nearly the same letters, often stood together. The Method of Linnæus, therefore, is just such a dictionary in botany, while the Philosophia Botanica iś the grammar, and his other works contain the history, and even the poetry of the science. (p. 358.)

Generic characters are reckoned by Linnæus of three kinds, the factitious, the essential, and the natural, all of them founded on the fructification only.

The first of these serves only to discriminate genera that happen to come together in the same artificial order or section: the second, to distinguish a particular genus, by one striking mark, from all of the same natural order, and consequently from all other plants; and the third comprehends every possible mark common to all the species of one genus.'-Linnæus very much altered his notions of the essential character, after he had published his Philosophia Botanica, Instead of confining it to one mark or idea, he, in his Systema Vegetabilium, makes it comprehend all the distinctions requisite to discriminate each genus from every other in the system. This is the kind of generic character now universally adopted, and indeed the only one in common use. (p. 365.)

How far the learned president is inclined to alter or improve upon the Linnean generic characters, may be gathered from a single passage, (p. 366.) For my own part, I profess to retain, not only the plan but the very words of Linnæus, unless I find them erroneous, copying nothing without examination, but altering with a very sparing hand, and leaving much for future examination. I cannot blame my predecessors for implicitly copying the Linnean characters; nor should I have been the first among English writers to set a contrary example, had I not fortunately been furnished

t

*Sketches of the History of Man. Introd.

with

with peculiar materials for the purpose.' We presume he here refers to the fact which we have already noticed, of his being in possession of the library, manuscripts and herbarium of Linnæus himself. The caution thus expressed we think extremely commendable: but we are not of opinion that the Doctor has acted uniformly on this scrupulous principle. We have not forgotten that, in his Flora Britannica, he broke through the Linnean boundaries, and adopted the Hedwigian genera of mosses; throwing down the gauntlet, as it were, in the very title-page of his book, Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri,a favourite motto of this author, but strangely omitted in the present work, to which, of all his other writings, it ought to have been the most apposite. The reason why this bold Horatian inscription has, on this occasion, been superseded by the canonical one, of Consider the lilies how they grow,' may perhaps be gathered from the extract just given.

On the subject of nomenclature, we meet with some curious traits of botanical zeal and jealousy. We are told, that in all ages it has been customary to dedicate certain plants to the honour of distinguished persons. Thus Euphorbia commemorates the physician of Juba, a Moorish prince; and Gentiana immortalizes a king of Illyria.' Now, we must confess that, in our opinion, neither has the Moorish prince's physician been thereby commemorated, nor the king of Illyria immortalized! We venture to say, that nine-tenths of botanists, who are daily conversant with euphorbias and gentianas, never thought nor heard about either of the distinguished persons' alluded to.

Dr Smith appears to have been in a sad puzzle how to Latinize the Old-English Long-Parliament name of Dr Goodenough (now Eishop of Carlisle). He at last, euphoniæ gratia, we presume, chose Goodenia for his much honoured and valued friend,' though it has, when too late, been suggested that Goodenovia might have been preferable!' Gocdenia, we fear, will not long preserve the botanical memory of the learned and excellent Bishop; nor do we see why it is too late to adopt the improvement of Goodenovia, suggested, we believe, by Professor Martyn of Cambridge, if this be thought more likely to answer the purpose. Indeed the change seems more necessary, now that there is likewise a Goodia genus in the catalogue. Of similar importance is the following morsel, and with as much propriety does it hold a place in an Introduction to Botany: My Humea has been called in France Calomeria after the present Emperor, by the help of a pun, though there has long been another genus Bonapartea, which last

*We presume that the pun consists in translating the Latin words hona pars literally into Greck, καλον μερος.

can possibly be admitted only in honour of the Empress, and not of her consort, who has no botanical pretensions! Our own beloved sovereign could derive no glory from the Georgia of Ehrhart; but the Strelitzia of Aiton stands on the sure basis of botanical knowledge and zeal.' The courtly flattery of the Doctor is here amusing; but we suspect that many will not relish the impartiality of his gallantry, but will, even in botanical matters, dislike to see our fair-famed Queen placed exactly on a par with Bonaparte's Josephine, especially since it is to be dreaded that any comparison, either as to botanical knowledge or zeal,' would not have a very desirable result.

6

Linnæus, in his Critica Botanica, having drawn a fanciful analogy between the character of fome botanilts and the plants named after them, Dr Smith has purfued this ingenious idea,' and remarks, that Dicksonia, a beautiful and curious fern, is well devoted to our great cryptogamift,' (Mr Dickfon, feedfman, Covent Garden); while,' it is added, with a vanity which we are very willing to pardon, Smithia sensitiva, named by Mr Dryander in the Hortus Kewenfis of our mutual friend Aiton, could, at that time, be merited only by an original treatife on the Irritability of Plants, to which the specific name happily alludes.' There is evidently fomething very particular in the way in which this last analogy is ftated; and we believe we can explain the reafon of this particularity. Though botany is in itfelf a pure and peaceable itudy, botanists, alas! are but men; and, as far as our observation reaches, very far from being inacceffible to envy, jealousy, or rivalship. Mr Salisbury, author of the Paradifus Londinenfis, has, it seems, fallen out with the Prefident of the Linnean Society; and, by way of revenge, has denied that Mr Dryander projected the name Smithia sensitiva, and has alleged that he himfelf did fo; and further, that Dr Smith is egregiously mistaken in thinking that the epithet sensitiva had any reference to his treatife on the irritability of plants, for that it was really meant to intimate that he was a man of a fretful temper! Dr Smith feems to relish this fatirical humour very ill; and obferves, very touchingly, that fuch fallies ftain the purity of a lovely science;' and that it favours of malignity, to make the crown of a botanist a crown of thorns.' (p. 383.) After all this, we fcarcely expected to be obliged to rebuke the worthy Doctor himself for a feverity of this kind towards Petiver, the celebrated fimplift of London, of whom, in illuftrating the 4th order of the class Hexandria, he says, 'Petiveria alliacea is a plant, the number of whofe ftamens is not very conftant, and whofe fpecific name is fupposed to allude, not only to its garlic scent, but also to the caustic humour of the botanist whom it commemorates.?

་

The 234 chapter contains an explanation of the Linnean arti

ficial fyftem.' This explanation, though fhort, is very distinct. As might be expected, very few alterations or improvements are propofed by the Doctor. A flight reftriction of Polygamia is the only emendation on the claffes. Among the orders, he propofes feveral improvements on thofe of the clafs Polyandria; and in the difficult clafs Syngenefia, he gives fatisfactory reafons for difliking Polygamia fruftranea; and for altogether suppreffing Monogamia, as had been propofed by Willdenow. In the clafs Cryptogamia, Dr Smith very properly acquiefces in the feparation made by preceding botanifts, of the Hepatice from the Alga, with which they were conjoined by Linnæus. While he justly extols the Linnean fyftem, the Doctor candidly admits, that, like all human inventions, it has its imperfections and difficulties.' Thefe he correctly states to be, the differences which fometimes occur between the number of ftamens, ftyles, &c. in different plants [fpecies] of the fame natural genus;' fome fpecies of ceraftium, for example, having four, others five, though the greater part have ten, and the plant being accordingly arranged in the clafs Decandria.

6

In the 24th chapter, we find illuftrations of the Linnean claffes and orders.' This is just an amplification of the preceding chapter. The illuftrations confift, in a great meafure, in references to plates contained in the moft popular and acceffible botanical works; which happen very naturally to be thofe chiefly, in which the author himself has previously been engaged; Exotic Botany, English Botany, Flora Græca, and others. Dr Smith is clearly of opinion that the clafs Icofandria is immutably diftinct in nature and character from Polyandria;' and nothing (he obferves) can be more injudicious than to unite them, as fome experienced authors have done.' He recommends, however, an union of the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th orders of Polyandria, which he thinks ferve only to keep natural genera afunder. He vindicates the Linnean clafs Gynandria, and disapproves of Thunberg's abolishing it. He is likewife inclined to fupport the claffes Monoecia and Dioecia,-not being of opinion that their fuppreffion would really tend to fimplify the Linnean fyftem. Even the clafs Polygamia he is willing to retain ; but he argues very feebly and illogically indeed in its fupport. Two or three genera are entitled to a place in it; and we cannot tell but others may exift in the unexplored parts of the globe!' If, however, thefe three laft-mentioned claffes should hereafter be thrown into one, he propofes that the new clafs fhould be called 'Diclinia, exprefling the two diftinct feats or ftations of the organs of fructification. '

The last clafs, Cryptogamia, it is well known, has been greatly illuftrated, and to a certain cxtent new-modelled, fince the time of Linnæus; and we certainly expected, from the author of the Flora Britannica, a luminous ftatement of the difcoveries and im

provements