APPENDIX. 



67 



free, whereas it was certainly adnata in the species I examined in 



a living state : he makes no mention whatever of the conspicuous -^ 



epigynous gland that crowns the summit of the ovarium, which 



tends subsequently to the singular mode of dehiscence of its 



capsular fruit. In like manner this learned botanist failed to 

 observe the gynobasic origin of the style in Grabowskya, which 

 led to his error in placing that genus among the Solanacea, and 

 he does not notice the erect position and basal insertion^ of its 

 ovules, so contrary to all that is met with in that family. I 

 merely quote these instances, out of a number of others, to show 

 that the most accurate observers and the most learned men are 

 as liable to errors and omissions as those of less pretensions, and 

 they ought consequently to look charitably on the faults of others. 

 The necessity of groping, as it were, in the dark in search of 

 tangible facts, and treading the path firmly at every step, givmg 

 thus a desultory character to these communications, added to the 

 rigour of detail, originating in my professional habit of proving 

 everything by rule and by positive demonstration, may justify 

 the charge made by Dr. Sendtner, who says of me, regarding 

 these contributions, " rei botanicse parum profuit : veras disci- 

 plinse botanicEe notiones vilipendens," &c. {he. cit. p. 225) ; and 

 this dullness may account for my utter inability to comprehend 

 the more refined and transcendental definitions of the German 

 school. This accomplished botanist, describing in his elaborate 

 work the nature of the inflorescence of the Solanacea (p. 181), 

 has employed an extent of definition that would occupy ten close 

 octavo pages, in order to describe that which appears to me might 

 be made far more intelligible in almost as many lines. Aiter 

 giving my best attention to this elaborate diagnosis, I am yet 

 unable to comprehend the finer distinctions of " recau escent, 

 concaulescent, estalechic, antidromical or homodromical ^ deve- 

 lopments and their various combinations ; nor can I perceive the 

 utility of employing other new terms, such as " dichasia, concmna, 

 cormanthfc, metapodia, hypopodia," and a number of others, m 

 order to explain what we commonly understand by a simple or 

 compound cyme or corymb, expressions long in use and compre- 

 hensible to everybody, without the necessity of employmg words, 

 involving ideas of development founded wholly on h)T)othesis. 

 Besides, after all, the fact is known to all horticulturists that in 

 the same species its habit and the development of its inflorescence 

 are subject to much variation if grown in different soils, m a hot 

 or cold temperature, in a moist or dry atmosphere, m exposed or 

 open situations ; hence the characters derivable from such sources 

 are always variable, while those features observed m the develop- 

 ment of the flowers and fruit are far more constant and always to 

 be relied upon for scientific purposes. This consideration leads 



