340 . MR. G. BENTHAM ON COMPOSITE. 
He followed Lessing too closely where his own more perfect 
specimens might have shown errors; and in the numerous new 
genera he proposed, he, in too many cases, neglected the verification 
of the tribual characters which from their aspect he presumed them 
to possess. Thus it is that identical species, for instance, are not 
unfrequently repeated in different tribes, and that the most closely 
allied genera are often widely separated without cross references 
to indicate their connexion, the general result being that further 
researches have occasioned greater changes in proportion in this 
than in any other part of the ‘ Prodromus.’ 
C. H. Schultz Bipontinus, devoting many years of his life exclu- 
sively to this order, considered himself, and was regarded by many 
others as the great synantherologist of his day; but he did not 
live to work out any general system. In his numerous detached 
papers he modified the circumscription of many genera, corrected 
errors, and consigned to print many valuable observations ; but 
he seemed always too much in haste to bring out something new, 
to divide or to consolidate old genera, changing long lists of names 
of species of which he had only examined one or two, to alter 
upon slight grounds the scale of relative value previously given 
to generic characters, without, however, relinquishing the idea 
that there exists in nature such a scale possessing a high degree 
of fixity, and in general to affix his own stamp upon all future 
synantherological labours. Where he has taken time to work 
out his monographs in detail his observations have appeared to 
me reliable for their accuracy; but where he has proceeded 
hastily it is difficult to follow him. His determinations, for in- 
stance, of Mandon’s Bolivian, of Riedel’s and Langsdorff’s Brazi- 
lian, of Liebmann’s Mexican Composite are replete with misnomers. 
There are other points also in which either I cannot quite agree 
with him, or from which I should differ widely. His multiplica- 
tion of species is sometimes carried very far. His reliance chiefly 
upon the form of the achene for generic distinctions is in some 
cases a great improvement, in others carried so far as to become 
purely artificial. I must agree with him in his high estimation 
of the labours of Cassini; but that does not appear a sufficient 
reason for adding one more to the numerous names already given 
to the order. Even for those who maintain that all natural orders 
must be named after some one of their genera, with the affix of 
acee, there is Lindley's name of Asteracee, which has the right of 
priority over that of Cassiniacee proposed by Schultz, besides that 
