the eager hopes of speedy relief attract fuch numbers of citizens that afford an inexhauftible field for the acquifition and display of knowledge and benevolence. Had Dr. Pulteney's time been more occupied in adminiftering relief to the poor and diftreffed, and his purfe oftener opened to the voluntary support of numerous charitable inftitutions, he would have had lefs time for botanizing, ftill less would he have bequeathed the enormous fum of 40,000l.; but he would have been a much more exalted character in the estimation of impartial posterity. For his talents, although they were not pre-eminent, we entertain a due refpect; and if his liberality and private munificence (for death-bed charities are nothing) were as well afcertained, his reputation would have been much more general and permanent. As it is, his parfimony and his heirless fortune will be but cited as apologies for extravagance and diffipation. Had his editor duly appreciated thefe circumstances, and confulted his own intereft and reputation, he would not for a moment have disturbed the peaceful repofe of the author and his works, by publishing this fplendid volume, the greatest use of which will be, from its fine paper and large margins, the formation of three claffed common-place books for fome future Diaries" of ftudents in natural history. With the "General View of the Writings of Linnæus," the botanical public is long well acquainted; and, however novel and importtant it might be on its first publication, the general diffufion of natural knowledge has rendered it lefs interefting at the prefent day. Perhaps, indeed, it has fomewhat contributed to fuperfede itself, by naturalizing, in a familiar manner, the works of the great Swedish naturalift. The additions and alterations in this edition are, however, confiderable; but we lament that the latter are not always improvements. Of the additions it may be remarked, that they illuftrate the maxim-"A weak friend is the most dangerous enemy;" and the fame of Linnæus and Pulteney, if not materially injured, will be but little extended by Dr. Maton. We were indeed almost induced to believe, that he confidered grofs vanity as a virtue in Linnæus, as he gravely informs us, that, in confequence of fome criticisms on this naturalift, he violated the confidence of private friendship, by "publishing the various honourable teftimonies given to his talents, and the exalted approbation expreffed of his works by the most eminent men of science then living. Thefe were given in diftinct extracts of letters from the refpective authors, without comment, and without even glancing at his opponents. This performance he entitled, Orbis eruditi judicium de Caroli Linnai, M. D. fcriptis, and prefaced it by · fome short memoranda of his life, and a list of his works." Such conduct requires no comment; but we are furprized that it should now be detailed to the world. It is regretted that we have no analysis of the fyftems adopted fubfequent to Linnæus, as that of Juffieu, &c.; but the editor ought to have known, that M. Mouton Fontoneille, of Lyons, has published a view of all the botanical fyftems that have appeared till 1802, with a necrological account of their authors. Our NO. LXXXIX. VOL. XXII. U editor 1 editor alfo frequently afcribes feelings and motives of action to Linnæus, on the affumed authority of the Diary, which are neither fanctioned by that compilation, nor by fact, fuch as his fuppofed diflike of the medical profeffion, &c. The account of Linnæus's discovery refpecting pearls is extremely confufed and imperfect; and the unauthenticated memorial in the Appendix, attributed to Archbishop Menander, feems rather an imitation of French gafconade, than a grave petition. It is worthy of remark, and we thank Dr. Maton for the fact, that Linnæus was adjudged only a filver medal (a circumstance which he prudently concealed), while his pupil Bergman received a gold one, for his anfwer to the question, "How to diminish the damage done to fruit trees by the larva of infects?" The fame of this chemist's mathematical accuracy will long furvive that of the botanist's claffifi cations. The arrangement of this analytical view is more strictly chronological than formerly, and commences with the Genera Morborum, which are borrowed atmoft entirely from Sauvages. Linnæus's notions of animal life, taken from Newton's ideas of æther, are pitiably filly; yet, ftrange to tell, the editor admires them for their ingenuity! On Dietetics, the favourite work of ten years, we have only the boaft, "in his (dieteticis, plura collegi quam quod novi ullus alius." The Syftema Nature, or view of the animal, vegetable, and mineral Kingdoms, comes next under our editor's review, in which he is ftill more defective. If the original plan of Dr. P. admitted of any important improvement, it was certainly that of giving a tabular sketch of all the fubfequent fvftems in the different branches of natural hiftory; and although Buffon has very few juft claims to the title of naturalift, yet his extravagant notions, and the falfe brilliance of his language, have given a temporary popularity to his works, that renders a fketch of his fyftem and that of La Cepede of fome importance. By these means alfo the works of Linnæus would have been contraftéd, and that merit, inftead of refting on bombastic and hyperbolical effufions of blind admiration, would have been founded on reafon and experience. The editor has indeed gratified us a little by fome references to Shaw's Zoology and Latham's Birds, but very fortunately for thefe ingenious naturalifts, he has not mangled their works by attempting to give a complete view of their fyftems. On Entomology he feems ignorant of the excellent works of Fabricius, and only obferves that, notwithstanding the "Entomologica fyftematice emendata" of that author, the Linnean claffification ftill retains its original eftimation, and ought not to be deviated from." Dr. M. fhould have known that the fyftem of Fabricius is generally adapted on the Continent; that the Mufeum of Natural History at Paris is arranged according to his claffification, and that this authority, when oppofed, as in the prefent cafe, to national vanity, is equal to "fome of the fift writers on the fubject." All thofe who afpire to the character of naturalifts fhould be acquainted with the works of Fabricius. Latreille, and La Marck, thofe indefatigable helminthologists (as the 66 editor editor is pleased to call the profeffors of this fcience) later than the times of our author." The vice-prefident is no little aftonished that the number of infects" defcribed in Gmelin's edition of the Syftema Naturæ amounts to nearly 11000:" how great will be his aftonishment when he learns that in Fabricius the number exceeds 15000!! In the enumeration of the Linnean claffes of vegetables, that Withering and Sibthorp reduced to 20, the editor appears not to have known that the late Cavanilles, Profeffor at Madrid, reduced them to 15! Among the preliminary notices in this mifcellany, we find the following account of the origin of the Sexual System. "Linnæus had read in the Leipfic Commentaries a review of Vaillant's Discours sur la Structure des Fleurs, by which he was induced to examine very closely the stamina and pistilla. Thefe appendages he discovered to be essential to the vegetable, and to affume as much variety as the petals, and hence conceived that they might be made the foundation of a new fyftem, the first sketch of which he drew up in oppofition to an academical differtation by Peter Ugla, in 1729, entitled Tapos Qurwy, sive Nuptiæ Arborum.' He prefented this little MS. tract to Celfius, who fhewed it to Profeffor Rudbeck; and the latter was fo highly pleafed with its novelty and ingenuity, that he immediately expreffed a defire to be made acquainted with the author, and fhortly afterwards appointed him tutor to his children." We are no little pleased with the delicacy and juftness of the editor's compliment to the worthy Baronet, the Prefident of the Royal Society, whofe talents and zeal for the diffufion of useful knowledge pofterity will more justly appreciate. The hiftorical view of the origin and progrefs of English writers on British Botany is not the least interesting part of the editor's additions. "The first attempt to separate the native from the exotic botany of this inland was made by Dr. W. How, whose work is named Phytologia Britannica, natales exhibens indigenarum Stirium sponte emergentium. London, 1650. 12mo. The plants are arranged in alphabetical order, and are above 1200 in number: but it must be obferved, that many of them are mere varieties, and still more, not actually natives. This Phytologia was followed, in 1667, by the Pinax Rerum Naturalium Britannicarum of Dr. Merret, who profeffing to Supply How's deficiencies, enumerated 200 additional plants; many of thefe, however, were as little entitled to places in a British Flora as others introduced by How. The accurate Ray, who published his Catalogus Plantarum Anglie, only three years afterwards, did not venture to register more than 1050: but to this number he afterwards added about 50, in the new edition of his catalogue, printed in 1677, and at length in the fecond edition of his Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum, (1696, 8vo.) he augmented the lift to full 1600 fpecies, of which few have fince been expunged, fo cautious was this excellent botanist not to admit doubtful natives into his enumeration. In the year 1724, fome time after the death of Ray, a third edition of his Synopsis was published by Dillenius, containing 450 additional species, on the authority of various contemporary botanifts, but more especially of the editor himself, and of Drs. Sherard and Richardson. From the pen of an obfcure individual, named Willon, the Synopsis affumed, in 1774, an English drefs, and, by the addition of a botanical dictionary, and feveral figures, became U 2 well well calculated to render the fcience more generally understood in the country; indeed this work is to be confidered as the first methodical Flora of England published in the vernacular language. None of these writers, however the fcientific had been fubftituted for alphabetical arrangement from the time of Ray, had as yet attended fufficiently to genuine fpecific diftinctions. Hence the 2200 plants contained in Dillenius's edition of the Synopfis did not ftand the teft of Linnean rules, which reduced the Flora Anglica very confiderably; fo that Hudfon, in the first edition of his work, bearing that title, (1762, 8vo.) did not include in it more than 1566 fpecies. The Flora of Hudion was the earliest performance (if we except the Flora Britannica of Hill, which fcarcely deserves mention here) that profeffed to describe in a complete manner, agreeably to the fyftem of Linnæus, the native plants of thele iflands. To this work, which came to a new edition, and was much augmented in 1778, fucceeded the "Botanical Arrangement of British Plants," by Dr. Withering (in 1776), who, though not the first writer that publimed the British Linnean Flora in English, has been excelled by none in his endeavours to render the study of indigenous botany easy and ufeful to his countrymen in general. The "Botanical Arrangement," after having gone through three editions, (the laft of which was completed in 1790,) increated the British Catalogue to 2600 plants. In 1790, an elegant series of figures was commenced by Mr. Sowerby, which, with the defcriptions of Dr. Smith accompanying them, renders English botany more fulceptible of being eafily ftudied than ever, and with the new Flora Britannica, of which the fcientific ftudent is anxiously awaiting the completion, may be confidered as establishing the phytology of our island on a bafis of greater accuracy and authority than any other country in the world can hitherto. boast of." Our Linnean Prefident is here more confiftent than liberal or philofophical, otherwise we should have had the names of Hull and other botanists, (perhaps not all followers of Linnæus, indeed,) who have contributed to augment our knowledge of the English Flora. The view of the mineral kingdom is prefaced by fome obfervations on the basis of mineralogical systems, in which we have the following poftulate: "It is not perhaps an inaccurate analogy to confider chemistry as being, with refpect to mineralogy, what anatomy is to zoology." Had Dr. M. faid what anatomy is to the practice of furgery, he would have approached nearer the truth. Gmelin certainly betrayed a great defect of judgment, in precipitately fubftituting the fuperficial fyftem of Werner for that of Linnæus in his edition of the Syftema. It was a venial fpeculation, prior to the difcovery of the fimple earths, to fuppofe that common flint was formed from chalk; but it is not now worthy of notice, unlefs the editor means to bring the penetration of Linnæus into flint in competition with that of Newton, who difcovered the diamond to be combuftible, Indeed, while Linnæus adheres to the arranging of fuperficial anologies, he is correct and intelligible, but when he wanders beyond this sphere into *"There is a generic and specific description of British plants, tranf fated from the Gener, and Speci. Plant. of Linnæus, by James Jenkinson Kendal, 1775, Øvo. plates.” the the regions of more recondite philofophy, he is weak and erroneous: and even from this work it appears, notwithstanding so much gafconade in eulogies, ftriking of medals, titles of nobility, &c. that his original defcoveries might be all written in a much lefs compass than the leaf of a Linnæa, From Newton he borrowed his ideas of the law of nature, from Sauvages, his Nofology, from Artedi, bis Ichthyology, from Ray (principally) Swammerdam, Reaumer, De Geer, and others his Ornithology and Entomology; and laftly his grand fabric, the Sexual Syftem from our countryman, Sir Thomas Millington, Savillian profeffor of geometry in the univerfity of Oxford, who appears to have been the first that gave the hint to Dr. Grew." The whole doctrine may be expreffed in the following pofition; namely, " That the influence of the farina from the anthera of flowers upon the ftigma is effentially neceffary to give fertility to the feed" Linnæus, like moft of our modern fyftem-makers, has had the addrefs to avail himself of others' labours in order to conftruct a fabric deftiued to immortalize his own name by engulphing that of every other more original and profound philofopher. This is one of the many inftances of vanity and ambition obtaining a more diftinguished niche in the temple of fame than the more modeft and recondite labours of fuperior intellects. The concluding part of the General View is occupied with accounts of all Linnæus's detached papers publifhed in the Tranfactions of the Academy of Stockholm, and the Amanitates Academicæ, a collection of differtations, chiefly inaugural, in ten volumes, only seven of which were published by Linnæus. Of the analyfis her given we are modeftly intormed, that it is only "to be regarded as little more than an enlarged table of contents; and that it is impoffible by means of any abridgment, to give an adequate idea of the merit of this mifcellany, or of its utility as exhibiting dilated explanations of our author's philofophical and medical principles " We cannot perceive any impoffibility of giving an adequate idea" of this work in an epitome, neither is it fo rare, nor of such peculiar merit, as we are here taught to believe, and we doubt not but the labour of the author to naturalize thefe differtations will perfectly fatisfy his readers with regard to any latent curiofity for feeing the entire work. Perhaps indeed few of those will even have the refolution to drudge through the incoherent mafs as we have done, to cull a very few ideas of moder te merit from a huge chaos of puerile, worthlefs fpeculations. In juftice, however, to Dr. M.'s modefty, speaking of his work as "an enlarged table of contents," we must fay that he has given every thing that could be by any means interefting to the English public in the Amanitates Academice. To this there is one ferious exception, which we regret that the author has obliged us to make, the total omiffion of the names and habitudes of 491 plants, in the Pan Suecus, that Dr. Pulteney tranflated and arranged in order to give a tabular view of the different edible plants, that they might be cultivated according to the nature of the fol or the peculiar tafte of the animals which they were to feed. This was perhaps the fole article of great practical ulility, U 3 for |