38 «Mae, WoopwaARD's Effoy towards an 
.TEhé fynonyms sare; Scép. fo capa Y. p. 647 (b) accedit Gfed: Fung 
fos: vo oar) wis Ri Sj 27. tor fi 1+ Neitlier Einnasfs 
nor Hudfon is quoted, though: undoubtedly their fpecies wore füp- 
pofed: to. belong to one or the other; and: Hudfori's fornieatam is 
acknowledged; taibe his (B. Yquadiifidums 24 dasiq 963 əs [ovr 2 
-biy iet ny bótatift c compare thé concifes defcriptive, and' diferi 
minating characters; By Linnæus and Hudfon 'beforé mentioned, 
with thefe'prolix, vague, and indecifive charaëters * of Mr. Bryant ; - 
and determine whether if be ‘poffible: to miftake the plants pointed 
out ‘by the former, ¢ or to diftinguifli thofe meant by the latter? But 
Mr. Bryant fags; the rays of the ftellatum fplit i into an indeterminate 
number of fegments, and therefore it is an improper fpécific dit- 
tinction? and this would certainly: have great weight, if all the 
other fpecies did the -fame x but it i$ exprefsly contrafted with the 
fornicatum, where:the rays aré. defetibed quadrifid, and therefore 
is highly: proper.. Again, he p the diftinétions ‘ore acuthinato 
turity, when they no longer want their affiftance. It is difficult to conceive how any nou- 
tifhment can be derived. by\a root of the. kind Mr. B. fuppofes; and I do not know that 
any analogy from any other part of the vegetable kingdom can fupport this idea. At 
any rate, the philofophy of botany inftfuéls | $ not to form fpecific charaéters from roots, 
unlefs others are not to be found; but fachi not the cafe here; and from the peculiar 
El the roots of thefe plants are particularly inadmiffible. 
c * Exclutve of the i impropriety ol of the roots being. made ufe of, for perg tapes 
the outer coats are, not eafily. fo be examined when the plants. are expanded. ; T 
tinclions, E capitulo allidoy and * capitulo nigricante, are not founded i in fact ; as the heads 
| dw ve 
LI 
S 
 denlatoy 
- OR 
D 1 iit ve 
