This then is the Morisonian method,--or at least the nearest available approximation to it--in its entirety. The effect of its application to the Vegetable Kingdom can hardly be accepted as a sufficient justification of the superlatives with which its author had introduced it. Of course it is not reasonable to judge this method, or any other method of the past, by the standard of botanical knowledge as at present existing: it can only be fairly judged from the standpoint of its author. What has to be considered is (1) the soundness of the principles adopted, and (2) the consistency in the application of those principles. The conclusion to be drawn from such a consideration of the foregoing table is that Morison was more fortunate in his theory than in his practice. In spite of his statement that the "_nota generica_" should be taken from the fructification, many of the Sectiones are based upon quite other characters: such are (among the Herbs) the Scandentes, the Corymbiferae, the Culmiferae. Had Morison adhered more closely to his own principles, the results would have been more in accordance with his sanguine anticipations: such a heterogeneous group as _Sectio V_, for instance, would have been impossible. It was, perhaps, on account of its inconsistency that Morison's method never came into general use, although it was adopted enthusiastically by Paul Amman, Professor at Leipzig, in his _Character Plantarum Naturalis_ (ed. 1685); and, with some modifications, by Christopher Knaut, Professor at Halle, in his _Enumeratio Plantarum circa Halam Saxonum sponte provenientium_, 1687, as well as by Paul Hermann, Professor at Leyden, in his _Florae Lugduno-Batavi Flores_ (ed. Zumbach), 1690.