Such is the classification of which Morison spoke so slightingly in the _Dialogus_: though the character of the leaf is not made so much of as his criticism implied. There is no need to dwell upon the strained relations that arose between Ray and Morison; it may suffice to say that Morison laid himself open to the charge of jealousy, and that Ray never forgave the criticisms, both written and oral, that Morison had made on him. Those who are interested in the unfortunate quarrel will find an account of it, with a most loyal apology for Morison, in Blair's _Botanical Essays_ (1720). Ray may certainly be acquitted of plagiarism which is suggested by Blair, for he had no opportunity of studying Morison's system in its entirety: since, as already explained, it was not published in a complete form until the appearance of the _Sciagraphia_ in 1720, long after Ray's death. When Ray wrote the _Tables of Plants_ for Dr Wilkins, not even the _Preludia Botanica_ had been published: the only work that he produced after the publication of both parts of Morison's _Historia_ was the last edition of his _Methodus Plantarum_ (1703) which displays principles of classification of which Morison had no conception. The _Tables of Plants_ does not illustrate any very definite principles. It was a tentative production, written to order: in fact, it appears (as explained in the preface to his _Methodus emendata_, 1703) that Ray, in writing it, was not free to follow what he really believed to be the order of Nature. It is interesting, however, as being the first systematic work published in England. The classification is based, to some extent, upon the character of the fruit, a principle borrowed, probably not from Morison but directly from Cesalpino. Before long it was superseded by a much more comprehensive and ambitious attempt, the _Methodus Plantarum Nova_, issued in 1682, two years after Morison's _Historia (Pars Secunda)_. =Ray's= _Methodus Plantarum Nova_, 1682. DE HERBIS.