| Genus | i. | Coniferae: Abies, Pinus, Cedrus, Cupressus, Larix, Betula, Alnus. |
| " | ii. | Non-Coniferae: |
| Floribus racematim dispositis stamineis: Buxus, Pistacia. | ||
| " in fasciculos congestis: Empetrum. | ||
| Juliferae: nuciferae: Juglans, Corylus, Carpinus, Quercus, Fagus. | ||
| piluliferae: Platanus. | ||
| lanigerae: Populus, Salix. | ||
| Bacciferae: Juniperus, Taxus, Morus. |
B. Flore Fructui contiguo:
There can be no doubt that Ray was more fortunate than Morison in the impression that he produced upon contemporary botanists and upon those who immediately succeeded them. This, for instance, is what Tournefort said of him (Elemens de Botanique, 1694, p. 19): "Monsieur Ray sans faire tant de bruit a beaucoup mieux réussi que Morison. Sa modestie est louable, et l'Histoire des Plantes qu'il nous a donnée est une Bibliotheque Botanique, dans laquelle on trouve non seulement tout ce que les auteurs ont dit de meilleur sur chaque plante; mais encore les caracteres des genres y sont designez d'une maniere assez commode...." In the Classes Plantarum (1738) Linnaeus gave a somewhat formal approval of Ray's work: "Magna sunt opera J. Raji in Scientia Botanica, qui constantia summa, omnia, quae beneficio seculi innotuerant de plantis, manu plus quam ferrea descripsit." But perhaps a more genuine opinion is that expressed by Linnaeus in the letter to Haller from which his estimate of Morison has already been quoted (see [p. 27]): "You are here justly aware, that when the System of Ray was spoken of as perfectly natural, all botanists must have been blind, unless, like Dillenius, they hoped for a professorship, or were compelled, by the authority of the English, to give to Ray supreme honours. What was he? Undoubtedly an indefatigable man in collecting, describing, etc.; but in the knowledge of generic principles, less than nothing, and altogether deficient in the examination of flowers. I beg of you to compare the first edition of his Methodus with the second and third, where he has learned to take everything from Tournefort. I know not why the discoveries of Caesalpinus have escaped all observation, whilst everything has stupidly been ascribed to Ray" (Smith's Correspondence of Linnaeus, ii. p. 280-1). This rather severe criticism does not, however, seem to have prejudiced Haller against Ray, for in the former's well-known Bibliotheca Botanica (vol. i. p. 500, 1771), in speaking of the rapid progress of Botany in the latter part of the seventeenth century, he adds—"Multa pars horum incrementorum debetur Johanni Ray. Vir pius et modestus, V. D. M. maximus ab hominum memoria botanicus, ea felicitate usus est, ut totos quinquaginta annos dilecto studio ei licuerit impendere."
Ray's system also became more popular than that of Morison, and was in general use in England until the latter half of the eighteenth century, when it was gradually superseded by the Linnean method which was first applied to English botany in Dr J. Hill's Flora Britannica (1760).
Ray was never engaged in teaching any branch of natural history. Had there been, in his day, a Chair of Botany in the University of Cambridge, he would, no doubt, have occupied it: however, the professorship was not established until 1724, twenty years after his death. He might very well have been chosen to succeed Morison at Oxford: but, for some unstated reason, the professorship there was kept in abeyance for nearly forty years after the death of Morison.
As has been explained, Morison and Ray revived the forgotten labours of Cesalpino. The immediate result of the publication of their systems was to stimulate their colleagues on the continent of Europe to a noble emulation: there was scarcely a botanist of note who did not elaborate a system of his own. After suffering from too little work in the direction of classification, botany now began to suffer from too much: one after the other, system followed system in rapid succession. Those, for instance, of Christopher Knaut (1687), Paul Hermann (1690), Boerhaave (1710), Rivinus (1690-1711), Ruppius (1718), Christian Knaut (1716): and, in France, of Tournefort (1694, 1700), and of Magnol (1720). Then came the Methodus Sexualis of Linnaeus (Systema Naturae, 1735). The effect of the general adoption of Linnaeus' most useful but artificial method was the temporary arrest almost everywhere, except in France, of the quest of the natural system. Though this was the effect of the introduction of his method, it was not at all the intention of Linnaeus: for in his Classes Plantarum (1738, p. 485) he said, "Primum et ultimum in parte Systematica Botanices quaesitum est Methodus Naturalis." On the same page of that work he laid down, in a series of aphorisms, the principles upon which alone the construction of such a method can be successfully attempted; and he gave special emphasis to this one, that the classificatory characters should not be taken from a single structure but from all: "nec una vel altera pars fructificationis, sed solum simplex symmetria omnium partium." It was just because they had failed to formulate this principle that the earlier systematists,—whether Fructists, as Cesalpino, Morison, Ray, Knaut and Hermann; or Corollists, as Rivinus and Tournefort; or Calycists, as Magnol—were not more successful, and that their systems, even the Methodus emendata of Ray, were more or less artificial.
It was in France that the carving out, as it were, of the Natural Orders from the solid block of genera was carried on with the greatest success. This process had become much less difficult since Tournefort had begun to constitute genera in the modern sense of the term. Before his time the word "genus" had been applied indiscriminately to every kind of plant-group (see the systems of Cesalpino and Ray, [pp. 12], [32]): the largest groups were the summa genera; the smaller, the genera subalterna or infima. Tournefort limited the application of the term to the smallest groups of species, designating by the term Classe the largest groups which he subdivided into Sections (Elemens de Botanique, 1694). It was Linnaeus (Classes Plantarum, p. 485) who introduced the term Ordo to designate the subordinate groups of the classes.
Tournefort himself succeeded, by means of his corollist method, in distinguishing for the first time the following Sections, describing their flowers by terms which are now familiar as the names of natural orders; Flore Labiato, Cruciformi, Rosaceo, Caryophyllaceo, Liliaceo, Papilionaceo, Amentaceo; though these sections do not all exactly agree with the modern Natural Orders of similar designation. A remarkable, if not altogether successful, attempt in the same direction was Adanson's Familles des Plantes (1763), based upon the sound Linnean principle, "qu'il ne peut i avoir de Methode naturele en Botanicke, que celle qui considere l'ensemble de toutes les parties des Plantes." The number of species and varieties known in his day amounted to something over eighteen thousand: these, reduced into 1615 genera, he grouped into fifty-eight families. Several of those had been already more or less well defined; but most of them were entirely original, and not a few of them persist to the present day, though Adanson is not credited with all that are his due. His lack of method in naming his families, to say nothing of the fantastic nomenclature of his genera, made it necessary for other names to be preferred to his. Still some familiar names of natural orders are attributable to him, such as Hepaticae, Onagrae, Compositae, Caprifolia, Borragines, Portulacae, Amaranthi, Papavera, Cisti, though most of them have since undergone some change in their termination. In addition to these, there are several which would have been credited to Adanson, had it not so happened that they had also been suggested by Bernard de Jussieu: such are, Palmae, Aristolochiae, Myrti, Campanulae, Apocyna, Verbenae, Thymeleae, Gerania, Malvae, Ranunculi. Adanson was the first to publish these names (1763): but Bernard de Jussieu had made use of them as early as 1759 in laying out the Trianon Garden at Versailles, though they were not actually published until 1789, when all the 65 orders devised by him were included in the Genera Plantarum secundum Ordines Naturales disposita of his famous nephew Antoine Laurent de Jussieu. Here at last was a fairly complete natural system, consisting of one hundred natural orders arranged in fifteen classes, within the three great subdivisions, Acotyledones, Monocotyledones, Dicotyledones, constituting the framework of that which is accepted at the present day. It has undergone many modifications, of which the first and most important were those effected by A. P. de Candolle (Théorie Élémentaire, 1813), who, while he improved upon Jussieu in various ways, made the unfortunate, but happily unsuccessful, attempt to substitute "Endogenae" for "Monocotyledones" and "Exogenae" for "Dicotyledones." The system has proved itself capable of expansion to accommodate all the new genera and natural orders that have since been established: it has justified itself as a natural classification in its susceptibility to development in precision as well as in extent, and in that it has survived the many experiments made upon it during the first century of its existence.
The glory of this crowning achievement belongs to Jussieu: he was the capable man who appeared precisely at the psychological moment, and it is the men that so appear who have made, and will continue to make, all the great generalisations of science. Jussieu's achievement, like other great scientific achievements, would have been impossible without the labours and failures of his predecessors, of which some account has been given in this lecture. He himself attributed much of his success to the work of Tournefort, but it is clear that he owed at least as much to Ray: if he learned from the former the systematic importance of the gamopetalous and of the polypetalous corolla, he gleaned from the latter the value of the cotyledonary characters upon which are based his three primary subdivisions of the Vegetable Kingdom.