186 THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY. 



it a liberal interpretation, yet we cannot regard the epoch as having wit- 

 nessed any extended application of the facts of plant anatomy, physiology, 

 composition or properties, to classification. Such has, however, been done 

 in the Pflanzenfatnilien of Messrs. Kngler and Prantl. The classification 

 of each family is preceded by an analysis of its morphology, anatomy, 

 physiology, composition and properties, and to a great extent these sub- 

 jects are treated comparatively with regard to related families. The effect 

 of such treatment upon the systematic result cannot well be over-esti- 

 mated. It seems almost foolish to urge the saying that things which are 

 different are not the same, and yet there are few principles which have 

 been so generally violated and with such disastrous results. In plant- 

 classification the principle has been almost general and professed of limit- 

 ing comparison to differences of certain classes, and when these are want- 

 ing, of declaring the subjects the same, no matter how great the differences 

 of other classes which might exist. The publication of the Pflanzenfam- 

 ilien marks a new epoch in natural history in this direction, and its recog- 

 nition by pharmacy is imperative. 



3. We note that the classification of Engler and Prantl is made in view 

 of the entire sequence of plants, for they treat cryptogams as well as pha- 

 nerogams. Technically, of course, this view was not lacking to the 

 authors of the Genera Plantarum, but the task of formulating the com- 

 plete series in one work necessitated an attention to relationship which 

 could not fail to exert an indirect influence even upon the recognition of 

 relations between the phanerogams themselves. 



4. The number of persons engaged upon the two works. The Genera 

 Plantarum is practically the sole product of the two authors whose names 

 appear upon the title-page, and of Professor Oliver, who ascertained avast 

 number of the facts upon which the classification depended. As a result 

 of judgment of general relationship it is chiefly the work of Mr. Bentham 

 alone. In the case of the Pflanzenfamilien sixty authors divided the work, 

 each taking up his portion as a specialty. The authors were specialists of 

 a genuine kind, having first acquired general fitness and a broad grasp of 

 natural relations upon which their specialties were then grafted. It must 

 be admitted that this difference does not tend wholly to the advantage of 

 the more specialized work. An immensely greater amount of knowledge 

 and thoroughness of treatment is secured, but with it a certain degree of 

 diversity in treatment is inevitable. No considerable number of syste- 

 matists can be gotten together who will not represent upon the one hand 

 refined segregation, and upon the other broad unification. This of neces- 

 sity introduces into such a composite work as the Pflanzenfamilien a more 

 or less serious want of equality and uniformity in treatment, which is hap- 

 pily quite absent from the Genera Plantarum. It is, however, not nearly 

 so conspicuous in the former work as was anticipated, and is not, on the 



