Now the second course is that which has produced the intolerable multiplication of genera in modern times; and the first course is the only one which can save botanical nomenclature from replunging into the chaos in which Linnæus found it. It was strongly advocated by the elder De Candolle; although in the latter years of his life, seeing how general was the disposition to convert his subgenera and sections into genera, he himself more or less gave in to the general practice. The same principle was adopted by Endlichen, but he again was disposed to go far in giving substantive names to purely technical or ill-defined subsections of genera. The multiplication of genera has been much too common. Botanists have a natural pride in establishing new genera (or orders); and besides this, it is felt how useful it is, in the study of affinities, to define and {348} name all natural groups in every grade, however numerous they may be: and in the immense variety of language it is found easy to coin names indefinitely. But the arguments on the other side much preponderate. In attempting to introduce all these new names into ordinary botanical language, the memory is taxed beyond the capabilities of any mind, and the original and legitimate object of the Linnæan nomenclature is wholly lost sight of. In a purely scientific view it matters little if the Orders are converted into Classes or Alliances, the Genera into Orders, and the Sections or Subsections into Genera: their relative importance does not depend on the names given to them, but on their height in the scale of comprehensiveness. But for language, the great implement without which science cannot work, it is of the greatest importance, as our Aphorism declares, That the groups which give their substantive names to every species which they include, should remain large. If, independently of the inevitable increase of Genera by new discoveries, such old ones as _Ficus_, _Begonia_, _Arum_, _Erica_, &c. are divided into 10, 20, 30, or 40 independent Genera, with names and characters which are to be recollected before any one species can be spoken of;--if Genera are to be reckoned by tens of thousands instead of by thousands;--the range of any individual botanist will be limited to a small portion of the whole field of the sciences. And in like manner with regard to Orders, so long as the number of Orders can be kept within, or not much beyond a couple of hundred, it may reasonably be expected that a botanist of ordinary capacity shall obtain a sufficient general idea of their nature and characters to call them at any time individually to his mind for the purpose of comparison: but if we double the number of Orders, all is confusion.