1 NATURAL SYSTEMS. [Baskerville. 



1839. Baskerville, Thomas. — {Affinities of Plants^ with some Observations upon Pro- 

 gressive Development.) 



The author of this tract was a very young man, with little experience; but he 

 possessed strong perceptive powers, and would doubtless have distinguished himself had 

 life been spared to him. But he died almost as soon as liis little book saw the hght. 

 In the mam he adopted the scheme of Orders in the Nixv^ Plantarum, p. xH. ; but he 

 criticised that aiTangement with some skiU, and avoided many of its worst erroi's. Bas- 

 kerville's main pm'pose was to estabhsh a theory of progressive development in the 

 Vegetable Kingdom, and to show by maps and other schemes all existing aflfinities. 

 The following observations deserve to be quoted : — 



*' Before we endeavovu' to estabUsh any plan of affinity, it vrAl be necessary to make a 

 few observations upon a subject bearing closely upon that, namely, the respective rank 

 or dignity of plants, and the means we possess of ascertaining the same. That this is no 

 easy matter ■^vill appear when we reflect that imperfection is impossible in any work of 

 supreme intelligence : our ideas of one plant having a station above that of another vAW. 

 not be di'awn from any positive defect observable in the lowest, but from excellency we 

 fancy to discover in the liigher being. A Moss or Lichen is as perfectly fitted to the 

 conditions it is intended to fulfil, and its organs as completely adapted to that purpose 

 as the stately Palm, or magnificent forest tree. To imagine one plant, therefore, more 

 noble than another, we merely imply that we consider its organisation, either by its 

 complexity or some other character, to raise the plant possessing such qualifications 

 above the surroimding species. When our investigations are confined to plants upon, 

 or nearly upon, the same level, the problem is so intricate that it scarcely admits of 

 solution ; but when we take species separated by a long interval, the smn of additional 

 properties enables us to decide A\-ith more certainty ; yet the amount of difierence is so 

 trifling, and probably so exquisitely compensated for, that the balance is by no means so 

 great as might be expected. In consequence of this it does not appear that any one 

 has as yet been able to suggest what ought properly to be considered as the highest 

 kind of plant ; and the same difficulty would occiu* with regard to the lowest, were it 

 not decided by the degree of proximity to the animal kmgdom. 



*' It will be seen, therefore, that this kind of study is essentially comparative, and our 

 proper attainment of it dependent upon the extent of our acquaintance with the vege- 

 table species and theu' organisation, and on a proper interpretation of the importance 

 of the characters which we construct from these, which, as character scarcely ever main- 

 tains an equal value in aU its relations, lays open another som'ce of difficulty." — p. 39. 



1841. Trautvetter, Ernst Chinstian. — {De Novo Systemate Botanico.') 

 This is a speculative disquisition upon the philosophical way of classing plants. The 

 author begs that he may be understood to have executed his task not hke a Botanist, 

 but like a philosopher (non botanico sed philosophico munere perfmigi). He divides 

 the Vegetable Kingdom into semi-plants and true plants; the former into Favi or Acoty- 

 ledons, and Trunculi or Monocotyledons ; and the latter into Herbs and Trees. The 

 views of the author cannot be given better than in liis omti words: — " Flagrant naturee 

 venatores nova semper et incognita \'isendi cupiditate. Nos vero antiquitatis alumni alitor 

 sumus aff'ecti." The treatise vnW be foimd in the Bulletin de la Societe Jmperiale des 

 Naturalistes de Moscou, 1841, p. 509. 



J 84 3. Brongniart, Adolphe. — (J^numiration des Genres de Plantes cidtives au Museum 



d^Histoire Naturelle de Pans, suivant VOrdre etdbli dans Vecole de Botanique en 



1843). 



The apetalous division of Jussieu is abandoned on the gi'ound that the Orders 



belonging to it are an imperfect state of polypetalous Orders, (called after Endhcher 



dialypetalous). The impracticabiUty of a lineal natm-al arrangement is insisted upon. 



Rules are to be formed upon a posteriori not a priori considerations. Albumen is 



regarded of high value, especially the difference between farinaceous albmnen, and that 



which is fleshy, oily, and horny, which last are taken to be sHght modifications of each 



other. Finally, the dh-ection of the embryo is regarded of more importance in its 



relation to the pericarp than to the hilum. The following are the details of the system : — 



Division 1. CRYPTOGAMJE. No sexual organs, &c. 



Branch 1. Amphige.v^. No distinct axis or appendages, &c. 

 Branch 2. Acrogen^. Distinct axis and appendages, &c. 



Division 2. PHANEROGAMS. Sexual organs evident, &c. 



Branch 3. Moxocotvledons. Embryo with one cotyledon, <fec. 

 Rer. 1. Alhuminosce. Albumen. 

 Ser. 2. Exalhuminosce. No albumen. 



