hackel's andropogone^. 347 



the old plan. In describing a Pua we used to say, " spicul^e 5-6- 

 flowered " ; and then we require a term for the flower plus its 

 deckblatt and vorblatt ; if we may not use "flower" for this, we 

 must invent " anth," or some new term. But is it so indefensible 

 to include the bract and bracteoles in the term flower ? Eichler 

 well remarks that those, who argue that the term flower ought to 

 be restricted to the essential organs of reproduction, viz., the pistil 

 and stamens, cannot easily be answered. If, in Malvacece, the calyx 

 is reckoned a part of the flower, why not the epicalyx ? Is the 

 calyx other than a false whorl of leaves very near the flower ? The 

 usage of terms, as of the term flower, may conveniently be varied 

 somewhat in different orders. 



The further objection is taken that, when we call the uppermost 

 flower in a spicula of Poa or the lower in a spicula of Andropogon 

 tabescent, we feign an existence and a suppression — we do not 

 describe an actuality, but hazard an inference — we are speculating, 

 not honestly describing. But does not Prof. Hackel violate his own 



law when he says, " Gluma III. nulla, Gluma IV "? Surely 



his fourth glume must become the third when the third is *' nulla." 

 The fact is that good inference is the soul of descriptive botany ; 

 the question is whether our inference is good. I have no objection 

 to Hackel imagining the suppression of the third glume —neither, 

 indeed, to Kunth imagining the suppression of a flower in its axil. 

 The analogy of "lower" forms, both animal and vegetable, might 

 suggest that the spicula of Poa anciently consisted of a number of 

 exactly similar limbs ; that the two lower have become with 

 advantage to the fertility of the spicula permanently sterile, while 

 the uppermost glume of the spicula may be pistillate-barren, 

 male, or empty. This is surely preferable to anything that sug- 

 gests that the "Gluma III. vacua" in Andropogonece is on its 

 geological course towards becoming a male, and subsequently a 

 perfect, flower. 



The real objection, however, to the introduction of a new 

 terminology is (that to the introduction of an improved logical 

 alphabet) that we have to learn both the old and the new, and have 

 extra labour every time we compare a genus in Kunth with a genus 

 in Hackel. To students, the mastering a double system of describing 

 Grasses is confusing and distasteful. A sufficient ground for starting 

 a new system is that the old is so cumbrous or so strongly suggestive 

 of fatally erroneous conceptions that it is imperative to throw it 

 over at all cost. And the question as regards Grasses is (in the 

 judgment of many) open whether that is so. 



The description of the 425 species occupies more than 600 pages. 

 The "species" being understood in a Benthamian sense are afflicted 

 with numerous varieties ; the species Andropogon Sorghum Brotero 

 occupies twenty pages with forty-two vars. (some of these vars. 

 divided again into sub varieties). It is rarely that we gain much by 

 the reduction of an old species to the rank of a variety : if the 

 species can be absolutely sunk in another, we do gain much ; but, 

 if it is merely degraded to the rank of a var., we have to write four 

 or five words to name it, instead of three. The author who reduced 



