BOTANICAL SYSTEM OF PROFESSOR PERLEB. 331 



As to the above Scheme, it is quite certain, that Ternaries 

 are out of place. They should follow Thalamopetalce : The 

 FiliciiKe are not Endogenous, as supposed by some, and 

 should be immediately followed by the Gymnosperms and 

 AmentacecB ; CycadacecB resemble Palms in the mere trivial 

 circumstance of being unigemmate. — The Monochlamyde(B 

 seem to be composed of two Sections, lying widely apart, 

 and normally distinguished by Burmeister and others as, 



Apetalae diclineEe lepidantheej 

 Apetalas monoclineae chromantliEe. 



The succession would also be more natural on the whole, if 

 the Calycopetal(B included Families with a Disk round the 

 Ovary, whether the Disk adheres to the Calyx, or rises freely 

 from the Torus ; and if, moreover, the Class, so modified, 

 stood between the two Apetalous classes, thus : — 



Protophyta ; Monopetalse tlialamantliae ; 



Muscosae ; Monopetalae calycanthas ; 



Filicinee ; Thalamopetalae ; 



Apetalae diclineae lepidanthse ; Ternariae ; 



Peridiscantheae ; RhizantheaB. 

 Apetalae monoclineae chromanthae ; 



This arrangement (as not consisting of two parallel series), 

 cannot place all the Alliances in immediate natural sequence, 

 but may present a series always either connected, or closely 

 analogous. 



Perleb's Table of Classes is followed by a Table of his 

 Orders or Alliances, with their several distinctive characters ; 

 the Families are then tabulated in the same manner, with their 

 differential characters, under their respective Alliances. The 

 whole exhibits great precision and extensive powers of gene- 

 ralization, and will amply repay a careful examination ; but 

 I cannot venture here to do more than exhibit those cases, 

 in which Perleb seems entitled to be quoted as the founder, 

 or among the Synonymes of the Alliances. The writer, who 

 has assembled more than half (sa^ three out of five) of the 

 families of an Alliance, ought to be deemed the founder, un- 

 less its distinctive aspect is lost in the crowd of spurious 

 additions. 



Such additional Synonymes as I have met with since the 

 former publication, and some which have arisen from dividing 

 a few of the larger alliances (chiefly the Cellular es), into 

 others of less extent, may be laid hereafter before your read- 

 ers. — With the view of comparison, my own Table is sub- 



VoL. IV.— No. 34. N. s. 2 s 



