natural Family of Plants called Composite. 95 
reconciles the opposite statements of Koenig and Roxburgh; for 
I find that at the time of flowering the envelope of each floret is, 
as Roxburgh has figured it, distinct from the ovarium, with which, 
however,in a more advanced stage its tube becomes firmly united ; 
a fact that sufficiently accounts for Keenig’s description. 
‘There is here, therefore, a nearer-approach. to a true. perian- 
thim than in the involucrum of Lagasca; but the expansion of 
the flowers being, as in that genus, from centre to circumference 
of the capitulum, I consider the envelope of Cesulia as unques- 
tionably an involucrum, —- the asne anaie paea nalonging to 
Polygamia segregata, | ; 
^I mayhere ERA n name dors ttp conii anche 
+ Linneus for those genera of Composite with densely aggre- 
gate capitula, is caleulated to give an erroneous idea of the nature 
of the structure ; the opposite term Polygamia congregata being, 
according to the view now taken, obviously more proper for those 
genera,: at least,, whose involucra contain several flowers. : It is 
not. unlikely, indeed, that Linneus himself was aware of the true 
nature of the inflorescence of these genera; but the term Polyga- 
mia.congregata would not. have suited the artificial arrangement 
which he adopted in his subdivisions of the class, nor his includ- 
ing in it the order: Monogamia; for, with. this order the single 
flowered genera of. Bole gamia : dei must then have bars 
confounders —— 
dt is a curious. circumstance,» that the: iim of. MP in 
onini does not depend.on-the number.of flowers actually 
existing, but on the effort, if 1 may so term it, made to produce 
them, manifested by the presence of an involucrum or common 
calyx, which.is.in some -cases;reduced: to a single flower. The 
fact.at the same time.contributes:to- prove, that the whole na< 
tural class is formed on that plan of dense aggregation of flowers, 
for 
a 
* * 
