The Rev. P. Keith on the Cla$sificatio7i of Vegetables, 109 



visions too much in the background, as well as of giving room 

 for the remark that the principles of the system are departed 

 from. It is enough if the novel terms are introduced to the 

 aid and illustration of the terms of Jussieu, but not to their 

 entire exclusion. Neither do the names imposed upon the 

 minor divisions seem to us to be any improvement. In what 

 respect is thalamiflora^ better than hypopetalae; or calyciflorae 

 than peripetalae or epipetalae? If neither one set of terms 

 nor the other is imposed in strict conformity to the anatomical 

 structure of flowers, why exclude one term tliat-is faulty 

 merely to make room for the introduction of another term 

 that is faulty also? It may be true that the stamens and corolla 

 have always the same insertion ; it may be true that, in strict- 

 ness of anatomical speech, their real insertion is always on the 

 torus^ but as botanical writers seem satisfied to describe them 

 by their apparent insertion, we are of opinion that, unless some 

 very obvious atl vantage were to follow from it, the nomencla- 

 ture and tlivisions of Jussieu ought not to be disturbed. Fi- 

 nally, the division of Acotyledonous plants into Cryptogamai 

 and Cellulares does not seem to us to be a sufficiently scien- 

 tific distribution of the group, because the Cellulares are still, 

 in fact, Cryptogamous, as well as the Cryptogamai themselves. 

 But his Dichlamydeae and Monochlamydeae, and Achlamydea^, 

 we regard as improvements, as affording a convenient ground 

 of subdivision, and imposing names upon distinctions involved, 

 though not designated by individual terms in the arrange- 

 ments of Jussieu. 



II. A learned Professor of Botany among ourselves, of high 

 talent and rej)utation, exhibits the second example of innova- 

 tion. In his Introduction to the Natural System of Botany he 

 sets out with'dividing vegetables into two grand groups, which 

 he calls classes, the Vasculares and the Cellulares, or flower- 

 ing and flowerless plants. The terms vascular and cellular 

 stand sufficiently in opposition to one another to form the 

 ground of a legitimate division; but the feature upon which 

 they rest is not more important than that of cotyledons, or the 

 want of them, and gives them, consequently, no apparent claim 

 to supersede the terms of Jussieu. Besides, the terms era- 

 ployed by the Professor are, perhaps, not altogether so cor- 

 rectly descriptive of their respective groups as those employed 

 by Jussieu. The former are of the same extent with cotyle- 

 donous plants, and the latter are presumed to be of the same 

 extent with acotyledonous })lants. But it is very well known that 

 this is not the fact, as will appear from the following subdivi- 

 sions into which the Cellulares are distributed by the Pro- 

 fessor himself. 1st, The Vasculares are subdivided into the 



