« PreviousContinue »
additions, was published by Dillenius in 1724. This work has always been elteemed one of the most coniplete Flere that any country had at that time produced.
Linnæus having promulgated, with great success, several new do&trines, in regard to the difpofition and denomination of plants, was speedily followed by a number of English botanists. It muit indeed be allowed, that natural history is highly indebted to that celebrated Swede. By a scientific inquiry into the method pursued by nature, the genera of plants were fixed by him upon a firm foundation, far different from the vacillatory methods of his predecessors. In this respect, his system is indisputably superior to that of Ray. But in justice to the latter, as one of the most industrious naturalists that Britain has ever produced, we must remark, that these two fyftematists had different objects in view. Linnæus fought for the most proper characters of the natural genera of plants, however difficult of investigation. Ray, on the contrary, paid more attention to conveniency; his primary object being to introduce young students to an acquaintance with the names that had been given to plants, without being very anxious whether that knowledge was acquired in an empirical or philosophic manner. In the higher divisions, viz. the classes and orders, these two naturalists appear to have changed characters : here, Ray attempted to follow the divifions of nature itself, while Linnæus adopted an artificial system, of which facility is the principal recommendation. The observation and expression of the number of the parts, are certainly capable of a more exact determination than most of the other generic characters. This has occafioned botanists to acquiesce in his system, although number is one of the most variable of all characters; but this acquiescence has perhaps prevented them from attempting to detect the natural method of plants; and thus, the very man to whom botany is under the highest obligations, may be said, in one respect, to have contributed more than any other to hinder its arriving at perfection.
Hudson, in his Flora Anglica, Lond. Svo, 1762, adapted Ray's Synopsis to the system of Linnæus, adding, however, several new species. To the Inomyms and places of Ray, Hudson made only a few additions; the time of flowering was the principal improvement. On the other hand, the remarkable structures, and the uses of plants, which had been noticed by Ray, were omitted by Hudson. A second edition of this Flora was published in 1778, in which numerous alterations were made in the species, particularly in the graffes. For instance, in the firft edition of his Flora, Hudson not only kept all the Linnzan species of Agroffis and Bromus diftinct, but even added several new ones, riz. Agrostis
palustris and sylvatica, Bromus ere&tus and ramosus; not to mention the additions in the other genera. In the second edition, as if he meant to compensate in fome degree for his former multiplication of the species, he joined together not only the species he had introduced, but also several of the Linnean ones, under the comprehenfive trivial name of polymorphus. Thus, Agrostis polymorpha contains not only his own new species, paluftris and sylvatica, but also the Linnean species, pumila, capillaris, piclonifera, and alba. In like manner, Bromus polymorphus contains the mollis and fecalinus of Linnaeus.
The botanical arrangement of British plants by Withering, was, in the first edition of 1776, little more than a mere translation of Hudson ; but, in the third edition of 1796, it was greatly improved.
The above are the most noted general Floræ. Symons has lately published his Synopsis plantarum in infulis Britannicis indigenarum, 8vo, Lond. 1798; in which, however, the three last orders of the class Cryptogamia are omitted. In the following year, Hull gave to the world his British Flora, Manchester, 8vo, a small but excellent manual for the practical botanist in his excursions. Of more circumscribed Flora we have also several of note. Lightfoot, in 1777, published his Flora Scotica ; and in 1785, Relhan, treading in the steps of Ray, produced the Flora Cantubrigensis, to which, at different periods, three fupplements were afterwards added by himself. It was not, however, untii a still later period, namely 1794, that the students of the filter university had equal facility in their botanical pursuits, by means of Sibthorp's Flora Oxonienfis.
Other authors, instead of confining their attention to particular places, have rather chosen to take peculiar genera of Britiih plants under their consideration. Of these we need only mentiou Goodenough, whose genus Carex, is publifhed in the Tranfactions of the Linnean Society; and Sole, whose Menthe Britannica was published in 1798. Theie monographiæ display great accuracy of research, and show, in a very striking manner, the advantage to: be derived from this inode of contributing aslistance to the sci
Notwithstanding the pains that have been taken in the investigation of British plants, much remained to be done, in respect to the more exact determination of the species. For this taik,' no person could be better qualified than Dr Smith, lince, in addition to his skill in botany, he is in poffeffion of the original berbarium of Linnæus, and hence could readily fatisfy himfelf refp.cting the true application of many of the Linuean naines. Tais power of referring to the identical plants designated by Linneus, VOL. VI. NO. II.
was of the greatest utility, as his names have frequently been erroneously applied. Independent of thefe errors, a copious source of perpetual alteration of the species, and consequent change of name, has arisen from the progressive improvement of the science.
In order to exhibit a clear view of the principal improvements, which the botanical experience and accurate investigation of Dr Smith has enabled him to make on the former publications on this subject, we shall mention them under distinct heads, beginning with the alterations and additions made in the genera. In the course of this review, we shall principally advert to the Flora Anglica of Hudson, as, although the publications of Withering and Hull are later in point of time, we consider the former to be the most proper object of comparison. It is necessary, however, to premise a few words respecting the general plan and execution of the work.
The plan upon which the learned author has proceeded, is, in itself, more complete than that of any other British Flora, and is formed on the best models of the Linnean school. To each class is prefixed an account of its characters, those of its several orders, and a synopsis of the genera, all of which had been omitted by Iludson. The essential characters of each genus are fiven, and amended differences of the several species, their trivial names being placed in the margin. To there succeed the 1ynonyms of other authors, in which we have to notice the improvement of quoring the trivial names, where any have been given, rather than the specific differences : the Englith names fol
The soil in which the plant is usually found, the parricular places where it has been observed in the British ifles, and the authority on which this information rests, fucceed; the two Jait articles' being, with great propriety, exprered in English. The account of each species concludes with the duration, time
* The general excellency of this work is such, that we felt ourselves lille disposed to find faults in it. We cannot, however, help observing, that we could have wished a diftinction had been made between the ufu. al English names by which the plants are known in their places of growth, and thole new-coined names which are little more than literal transla. tions of the Latin ones, propofed for adoption, but not actually in use.
Hudson, by the advice of Stillingfileet, introduced, in our opinion very injudiciously, tbefe anglicised botanic names. The frequent changes which take place in the genera, renders this kind of language too fluctuating for common use; and the Latin names are fully fuffcicut fur pere botanical purposes,
of Aowering, and a complete description even of the common plants. To this is sometimes added a few observations of importance.
The two first volumes, reaching as far as the end of the class Syngenesia, appeared in 1800: the publication was then interrupted, and the third was not publithed till 1804. This reaches to the end of the order Cryptogamia Mufci, and we wait with impatience for the three remaining orders, which will no doubt furniih abundant matter for another volume; as the class Cryptogamia has, fince the time of Ray and Hudson, been fo increased, by the labours of Hedwig, Bernhardi, Persoon, Dickson and others, that, in the recent publication of Hull, it occupies nearly one half of his Flora.
The genera which have been added to those in Hudson are very numerous. Thus, in the class Triandria, we have not only Sefleria, adopted from Scopoli by Withering, of which the only fpecies was the Cynosurus cæruleus of Hudson, but also Knuppia, the Agrostis minima of Hudson ; and the Cerastium unibellatum is removed from Decandria, and restored to its original lituation, as a species of Holofteum. In Tetrandria, Exacum (the Gentiana filiformis of Linnæus and Hudson) and Epimedium are introduced; allo Radiola, separated from Sinum. In Pentandria, belides Tamarix and Corrigiela, we have Meum, containing only one fpecies, M. Athamanticum, the Athamanta meum of Linnæus and Hudson. In Hexandria, we find Leucojum and Tulipa, already noticed by Withering and others. In Polyandria, the genus Chelidonium is separated, as by Jullieu and Gärtner, into Chelidonium and Glaucium; to the species of the latter Dr Smith has affixed the antient trivial names, considering them preferable to those given by Linnæus. In Didynamia, Linnaa is introduced, as in Withering and Hull, L. borealis having been found in Scotland by Profeflor Beattie. In Tetradynamia, Dr Smith has added Coronopus, from Gærtner; and, in Monadelphia, he has followed Le Heritier, in separating the genus Geranium into two, viz. Erodium and Geranium. In like manner, he has, in Syngenesia, taken Pyrethrum out of the Matricaria of Hudson, in which he follows Gärtner and Haller. In Gynandria, Malaxis is added as in Withering and Hull, from Swartz. In Monoecia, the Erigcaulon of Linnæus, which name had by Hudson been altered to Nafmythia, is restored. In the two orders of the class Cryptogamia contained in the present publication, several new genera have been introduced. la Filices, we have Aspidium and Cyathea, taken from Polypodia um ; Scolopendrium taken out of Asplenium; Blechnum, of which the only species, B. boreale, was formerly called Osmunda Spicant ; and Hymenophyllum, made up of the Trichomanes tunbrigense and
pyxidiferum, united into one species by the name of H. tun. brigense. In the Musci, the alterations are still more numerous, as not only the Buxbaumia of Linnæus, Withering, and others (Phascum montanum of Hudson) is introduced, but also the new genera, Gymnoftomum, Andrea, Tetraphis, Encalypta, Grimmia, Dicranum, Trichoftomum, Tortula, Orthotrichum, Pterogonium, Neckera, Funaria, and Bartramia. These genera, most of which are taken from Hedwig and Swartz, are principally formed out of the old genera, Bryum, Hypnum, and Mnium.
The attention which has of late been paid to botany, has introduced numerous improvements in the arrangement, or in the enunciation of the characters of the antient genera.. Of these improvements, the learned author has availed himself; and we shall now notice the removals which have taken place among the genera. Chara, formerly placed in the Cryptogamia Alge, was removed to Morandria Monogynia by Withering and Relhan: Dr Smith follows their example. Zostera is also removed, from Gynandria Polyandria, to the above class and order. Callitriche, in consequence of the sexes being sometimes in separate flowers on the same plant, was removed by Hudson from Monandria Diggnia to Polygamia Monoecia ; but is now brought back again to its former situation, in consequence of a general principle, to which Dr Smith has adhered, namely, to take out of the class Polygamia such plants as differ only in their sexual organs, and place them in the classes to which their hermaphrodite lowers belong. This principle is certainly a very good one, as it tends to prevent an useless dislocation of analogous genera. Indeed we may observe, that the whole class might be broken up, and its genera removed to the several clafles of hermaphrodite flowers : we confess, however, that considerable difficulty would occur respecting the place of Atriplex and Mimosa. The latter genus is unknown in the British illands ; consequently the class, as it now stands in Dr Smith's Flora Britannica, contains only Atriplex. All the other genera are removed, Holcus to Triandria Digynia, Ægilops (now called Rottbollia) to the same class and order: Valantia is included in the genus Galium, and affords a remarkable instance of the improvement these alterations have produced. Parietaria is removed to Tetrandria Monogynia ; Acer to Ostandria Monogynia; Fraxinus to Diandria Monogynia ; and Ilex, as in Withering and Hull, to Tetrandria Tetragynia. Profeflor Thunberg was the first, we believe, who proposed to remove the Syngeneha Monogamia to Pentandria ; aftep in which he is followed by Dr Smith. As those plants, from the simple structure of their flowers, aflorted but ill with the compound Howers of the remaining plants of the class, we cannot but con