MONOfcCIA. 471 



deciding whether there were any real dif- 

 ference of structure between these acces- 

 sory parts or not, and it might puzzle an 

 adept to determine the question. For in- 

 stance, whether the nectary in Salia\> dif- 

 ferent in the barren and fertile flowers of 

 some species, should lead us to keep that 

 genus in Dioecia, though in other species 

 the nectary is precisely alike in both the 

 kinds, and occasionally an abortive germen 

 occurs in the barren flowers, as stamens 

 do, more rarely, in some fertile ones. 

 Considering all this, I should refer Saliv 

 to Diandria Monogynia. 



With respect to those Monoecious or 

 Dioecious genera whose barren flowers are 

 decidedly unlike the fertile ones, the former 

 being in a catkin, the latter not, as Cory- 

 lus 9 Quercus, &c, I conceive nothing more 

 pernicious or troublesome can be attempted 

 than to remove them to the Classes' of 

 united flowers. They meet with no allies 

 there, but, on the contrary, form so na- 

 tural an assemblage by themselves, as to 

 be unanimously kept separate by the au- 

 thors of every natural system that has ap-» 



