106 



other, the potent a gene. There are more three different ways of making up 

 such groups of the same category by substituting (b) (c) or (d), iu the place 

 of (a). Also, there are certainly many other ways of grouping tli3 four 

 species so as to classify the species by taking a combination of genes asl a 

 criterion instead of a single gene, such as a b, C b, a C, b C, C d, or bed, 

 a C d, a b d, a b C, and so forth, - - each way being in agreement with a 

 natural relation according to each respective view. So the groups themselves 

 are cliangeable or dynamic, according to whether we take this gene or that, 

 or this combination or that, as a criterion for classification. One way of 

 grouping can not be said to be more natural than others. Any one is 

 natural so far as it is understood as dynamic and changeable according to 

 views. But as soon as it is understood to be the only fixed, unchangeable 

 one, admitting no other way, it becomes unnatural. I shah 1 give a few 

 examples of an actual instance, just below. 



Velloziacese 15 (Liliiflorte) : This family is referable to the Amaryllidacege 

 according to one view, but it may be included in the Heemodoracese according 'to 

 another view. Moreover, it will prove to ba a distinct family, if viewed from 

 a different standpoint. So the family itself is a dynamic one, variously 

 grouped according to the way of looking at the matter. 



Myoporacese^ (Tubiflorse) : According to one view, this family should be 

 divided into two, namely : - - one, containing Myoporum, Phdidia, Bontia and 



Zomb'iana, which might be incorporated into the Scrophulariacese, the other, 



represented by Oftia, which might be referred to the Verbenacese. Should this 

 view be kept, then the Myoporacess must be disorganized and the limits and the 

 members of the Scrophulariacese and Verbenaceffi should to some extent be 

 altered. Truly, the plants referable to the above three families share their 

 genes so as to be grouped in several ways according to views just as we 

 have seen in the four symbolized species to which we have referred before. 

 One way of grouping can not be said to be more natural than the others. 



Loganiaceae 35 (Coutortee) : This group is regarded according to one view as 

 a distinct family ; but according to another view, as is proposed by BAILLON, 



1) Nat. Pfl.-fam. II 5, p. 125. 2) Nat. Pfl.-fam. IV. -3, b. p. 357. 



3) Nat. Pfl.-fam. IV. -2, p. 26. 



