Numerical Divisions in Nature, 369 



factured from the Musa textilis ; and, not to multiply ex- 

 amples, where examples abound, it is this same vascular 

 system which, according to Oken, should scarcely be found 

 in his stem-plants, that has rendered the flax-plant of New 

 Zealand an object in some degree of national importance. 



Such are the grounds upon which this much-extolled qua- 

 ternary system of plants has been founded by its author. 

 Such IS the basis of that system of Fries, to which Mr. 

 Macleay has appealed in support of his own quinary 

 doctrines. 



With regard to the opinions of Mr. Macleay, as they 

 have not been applied in botany, they ought not, perhaps, 

 to be criticised in this place, but they are too closely con- 

 nected with this subject to be omitted entirely. Mr. Mac- 

 leay has confined his system of quinary divisions to zoology, 

 and of its applicability to that science we cannot pretend to 

 form a judgment ; but with botany we may be permitted to 

 express our opinion that it has no relation. It has been ad- 

 mitted that it would be difficult to invent a system which, 

 in skilful hands, might not be applied to the lower orders of 

 plants ; our remark, therefore, refers to vegetation in its ex- 

 tended sense ; and this being understood, we know of no 

 one fact in botany which tends, even remotely, to invalidate 

 this opinion. So much space has been already occupied 

 with this subject, that we want room for more extended argu- 

 ments ; there is one point, however, in which Mr. Macleay 

 has called botany to his aid, upon which we must remark. 

 In the Horae Entomologicae, — we have not the work at hand, 

 and speak from memory, — it is asserted that there is a direct 

 analogy in nature between the vertebrata and annulosa of 

 animals, and the dicotyledones and monocotyledones of 

 plants, the former of each having their skeleton in their 

 axis, the latter of each having their skeleton in their cir- 

 cumference. This is altogether an error ; no such analogy 

 exists. It is true that there is a material difference in the 

 structure of the stem of monocotyledones and dicotyledones, 

 but not of the nature assumed. The skeleton of dicotyle- 

 dones, by which of course the woody fibre is intended, is 

 not central like that of vertebrata, but intermediate between 

 two bodies of parenchyma, or flesh, by which it is also tra- 

 versed in rays : here, then, there exists no analogy. The 

 skeleton of monocotyledones is not external like that of 

 annulosa, but consists, figuratively speaking, of an infinite 

 number of bones, which branch upwards through the flesh, 

 which is always external. Here also is no analogy. The 



