Arrangements of Plants. 65 
at least, as many incongruities to the general observer, as the 
classes and orders of Linnzus. What would such an observer, 
unacquainted with the secret chain employed by these authors, 
say to the union in the same class of the Palme with the Junci ? 
the Muse with the Hydrocharides ? the Protee with the Atriplices ? 
the Jasminee with the Scrophularie ? the Rhododendra with the 
Campanulacee ? or, in short, to the many tribes apparently wholly 
discordant from each other, in conformation, in habit, in qualities, 
which occur in almost every class? Can the system of Linnzus 
exhibit any associations more revolting to his conceptions, or 
which would tend more decisively to convince him that, whatever 
may be their pretensions, these systems are in fact equally arti- 
ficial, and that their assumed natural affinities are nothing more 
than a partial resemblance, founded on some peculiarity of habit 
or conformation, which may serve to decide its situation in a 
nomenclature, but has often little or no seldom to real and | 
essential nature of the plant? Ut ues 
II. If such be the fact, our inquiry will now take a different 
shape. It is no longer a question as to the superiority of one 
system over another, but a question of degrees as to the superior 
execution of a similar method. Let us then, whether we choose 
to denominate them. both natural or both artificial, briefly com- 
pare the rival arrangements of Linnzus and Jussieu. 
The most important difference between these two methods 
consists in a preliminary distinction made by Jussieu, by which 
he divides the vegetable kingdom into three departments, to each 
of which he applies a separate mode of arrangement, whereas 
Linnzus applies his method indiscriminately to the whole. By the 
plan of Jussieu we are in the first place to ascertain whether the 
plant which we examine rises from the seed without a cotyledon, - 
- VOL. XI. K with 
