112 



therefore, be a dynamic system 15 . The same is true as to the system of the genera 

 in a family. This is very clearly seen in larger families such as the Graminese, 

 liosacefe, Saxifragacese, and others. In the Gramiuepe especially, the genera 

 never stand in a serial relation. There are, perhaps, not two tribes which 

 can be sufficiently distinguished one from the other by a single characteristic. It 

 is by a combination of several characteristics, that they are usually divided. 

 Of all the tribes of the Graminese limited by the authors of both ancient and 

 modern times, none is said to have been exactlj~ differentiated from the others"- 1 . 

 But, on the contrary, they are closely inter-related and share different charac- 

 teristics among themselves. Accordingly, they, tribes as well as genera, change 

 their limitations and members in accordance with different views. Their system 

 must, therefore, necessarily be a changeable one. The same is true as to the 

 species belonging to a large genus. They always stand in an inter-relation, but 

 not in serial relation. Such a system of treating and denoting inter-relations in 

 the dynamic views of species, genera or families, I propose to call the dynamic 

 system in the natural classification of plants. Although the same system can be 

 applied to the whole vegetable kingdom, I shah 1 , in the present paper, limit myself 

 to the AngiospermsB which group is more familiar to me than other groups. 



Those who insist upon the view that the natural system should be a 

 static one and that, therefore, only one real system is possible still believe the 

 evolution theory in the sense that, while species have been serially developed, 

 they have always retained diverse in their characters. On the other hand, 

 those who think that it is not always necessary that species should be developed 

 serially or invariably exhibit divergent characters ; and who also beleve that 

 species are not only able of themselves to turn out different species through 



1) I desire to call my readers' attention to the fact that the statements about the dynamic 

 system are to be held only in the case of a comparison of members (plants) which should all 

 belong to the same group or shoxild all belong to different groups of the same rank. The state- 

 ments are not to be applied in the case of a comparison of members, some of which belong to 

 the same group, while others belong to different groups. In the latter case, the relations of the 

 members belonging to the same group are less dynamic than those of members belonging to 

 different groups. For example, in comparing the plum, cherry, and cucumber, we see that the 

 relations between the former two are always more close (or less dynamic) than those between 

 either of the former two and the cucumber, even though we consider them from every different 

 point of view. 



2) Nat. Pfl.-fam. II. 2, p. 16. 



3) WETTSTEIN, E. E. Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik, p. 49. 



