These criticisms of Linnaeus, however, are not all of an adverse nature; in many places Hill does not stint his praise; and he does not fail, after describing each Genus, to mention its position in the Linnaean System. Pulteney[81] found it difficult "to reconcile the praises this author bestows on Linnaeus, in many of his writings, with the censures contained in his British Herbal." The difficulty is not very apparent; Hill sufficiently indicated his position in the following passage taken from the _Sleep of Plants_. "If our opinions have differed, 'tis upon a single Point; your arrangement of plants. In regard to that much greater article, the establishing their distinctions, and ascertaining their characters, I have always admired and reverenced you: to dispute your determinations there, were to deny the characters of nature. "Free in the tribute of applause on this head, I have on the other been as open in my censures; equally uninfluenced by envy, and by fear. It is thus science may be advanced; and you will permit me to say, thus men of candour should treat one another." Linnaeus is also criticised in the _Vegetable System_, more particularly for his unnecessary introduction of new names for plants; but here again Hill is full of praises for Linnaeus's descriptions of species. Although opposed to the Linnaean system Hill recognised its value as a means of evolving order out of chaos, and to him falls the credit of introducing it into England. Its first introduction was in his _History of Plants_ (1751), but it was unsatisfactory since the _Species Plantarum_ was not published until 1753. Hill next explained it in 1758[82], but it was not until two years later that the first _British Flora_, arranged on this system, appeared[83]. According to Pulteney[84], Hill performed this task "in a manner so unworthy of his abilities, that his work can have no claim to the merit of having answered the occasion: and thus the credit of the atchievement fell to the lot of Mr William Hudson F.R.S."