OS THE MtlTHOD OF JU8SIEU. 101 



iVaves: 1st, plants which had no cotyledons : 2d, plaints 

 which had one cotyldon : 3-1, plants which had t^o. These 

 were subdivided into orders, which took their distinction \ 



' chiefly from there being or not being any albumeri* in the 

 9eed ; and this was followed by another separation into 

 j^enera, by their seed he'in^ far ma ceo us or Jieshy. Hence 

 he proceeds to that strict and excellent separation, which 

 is completely in nature^ and truly just; "whether the. 

 stamens are fixed on the receptacle, on the calyx, or on the ^ " 

 pistil" raarkinj^ these by the appropriate names of ** hypo-* 

 genes, surlei-ficeptacle"; ** perig^nes,'«ur lecalice"; " epi- 

 , ^ genes, sur !e pistil". From this he pr6ceeds to more minute 

 divisions, explanatory of the species, in which he shows his 

 knowledge with a prefcifjion aihd exactness impossible not to 

 admire and feel. But in my last letter I showed, that^is niistake. 

 these two last are the only circumstances of all the method, 

 that have truth for their basis; for it is a positive fact, that 

 there are no certain number of cotyledones; and though * 



(except the firs) few plants show mere than two above; ,1-^* 



ground; yet they are within the seed, and their numbers 

 are rarely regulated but by the length of time the seasons 

 cause the seed to remain in the ground previous to it^ 

 sliooting. He took for cotyledons only the two last leaves, 

 appearing from under the heart, and as two leaves must 

 always be more or less in tlUit situationt he «aw not the 

 vest,- that were attached to it, or the number which sur- 

 rounded it. The extreme smailuess of the seeds of his 

 ccotyledonous plants reqmred a nice hand to dissect them, 

 and a solar microscope to enable the botanist to discern the 

 figure: and his monocotyledons arose from the mistake 

 ? of taking the ivrovg haf for a cotyledon , As in all 

 T'other seeds, the impregnatijig. x^*§5d.iuust ps^ss ..tlic^llglx 



* As it may not be recoU«cte«l or not known to'the reader, that In my 

 last letter on seeds I |)foved, that albumen and alburnum are the same 

 subisiaiice i I here repeat it; ha-ving taken ihe soft substance from 

 a graft while joining, and from a seedj andcompare^l it in every 

 chemical way possible with so small a substance j it proved in every 

 •^respect the same. ,Jussieuseems labe.of this o^nnion : for in writing of 

 #^»thj he makes use of but one expression. 



the 



