MONOECIA. U^*-. 



to a Student, in deciding whether there were any real 

 difference of structure between these accessory parts 

 or not, and it might puzzle an adept to determine the 

 question. For instance, whether the nectary in Salix^ 

 different in the barren and fertile flowers of some spe- 

 cies, 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 ger- 

 mcn occurs in the barren flowers, as stamens do, 

 more rarely, in some fertile ones. Considering all 

 this, I should refer Salix 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 Corylus^ Quercus, &c., 1 conceive nothing more 

 pernicious or troublesome can be attempted than t© 

 remove them to the Classes of united flowers. They 

 meet with no allies there, but, on the contrary, form 

 so natural an assemblage by themselves, as to be 

 unanimously kept separate by the authors of every 

 natural system that has appeared. But even if this 

 were not the case, there is a most important reason 

 for keeping them as they are, which regards the 

 artificial system more particularly, and of which its 

 author was well aware ; they are of all plants most 

 uncertain in the number of their stanjens. Now this 

 uncertainty is of little moment, when we have them 

 primarily distinguished and set apart from other plants 

 by their Monoecious or Dioecious character ; because 

 the genera being few, and the Orders constructed 

 widely as to number of Stamens, we find little diffi- 



XX 



