THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY. 185 



Turning next to the less important changes in family names we find 

 eleven of them, as follows : The Moraceae are separated from the Urtica- 

 ceae and include Cannabis and Fiats ; the Ulmaceas also are accorded 

 family rank and include Ulmus ; Thea is referred to Theaceae, Elettaria 

 and Zingiber to Zingiberaceae, Casta?iea to Fagaceae, Chimaphila to Piro- 

 laceae, Erythroxylon to Erythroxylaceae, Punica to Punicaceae and Kra- 

 meria to Krameriaceas. 



The total number of changes involved is thus seen to be eighteen. 



If now we do not adopt the new authority there are but two courses 

 open to us. The first is to discard all authority and to decide our cases 

 independently. This would probably result in a much larger number of 

 changes, for, besides those above enumerated, American authority would 

 probably separate Pulsatilla from Anemone, Leptandra from Veronica, 

 Padus, containing the wild cherry, from Primus, and perhaps Amygdalus 

 also, the division of the L,iliacese into several families, especially separa- 

 ting the Smilaceae, containing Sarsaparilla, the separation of the L-obelia- 

 ceas from the Campanulaceae, the division of the Leguminosae into three 

 families, the division of the Compositas into three or more, and the isola- 

 tion of the Krameriaceae. Aside, therefore, from objections on principle 

 to the Pharmacopoeia Committee acting in a general way as an independ- 

 ent authority, such action might be deprecated as favoring an excessive 

 number of changes. The only other course open to us is to continue to 

 follow the English authority. To discuss this particular point is the ob- 

 ject of the present communication. The question is so important that we 

 cannot afford to restrict its discussion to the cases which are affected in 

 the Pharmacopoeia. It is essential that so influential a work should in- 

 quire closely into the general merits of any system whose authority it 

 proposes to accept. 



The points of comparison between the two works may be advantage- 

 ously divided into those relating to their nature as scientific productions 

 and as books. Of the first-mentioned class we have the following : 



1. The respective dates of publication. Fifteen years elapsed between 

 the dates on which the two works were completed and twenty-seven be- 

 tween those of their completion. This average period of twenty-one years 

 was astonishingly active and productive both in the discovery of new ma- 

 terial and in field, herbarium and laboratory study, and was ample for the 

 revolutionizing of any such a system. 



2. The kind of study bestowed upon the two works. At the time of 

 the preparation of the Genera Plantarum, the comparative anatomy of 

 plants was but little known — less so in England than almost anywhere 

 else — and especially was its value as a factor in classification unrecognized, 

 and the proposition to so use it held in contempt. It is true that Messrs. 

 Bentham and Hooker gave great weight to habit in classification, and gave 



