INTRODUCTION 29 
Dicotyledons is based upon Ray. Thestress laid on 
the position of the stamens in relation to the ovary 
used in this universal way was of no real value. The 
division into Monopetale and Polypetalea was more 
natural, but the groups Apetale and Diclines irregu- 
lares were composite groups. 
De Candolle rejects Apetalz and Diclines forming 
a group Monochlamydeex, and his Thalamiflore, 
Calyciflore, Corolliflore are adopted by Bentham and 
Hooker in their ‘ Genera Plantarum,’ adopted here, 
since it is the general system followed in England. 
But we point out its defects later. One defect of 
this classification was the inclusion of Gymnosperms 
partly in Dicotyledons, partly in Monocotyledons, 
and it was not till Robert Brown had published his 
monograph on the Gymnosperms that there was any 
real knowledge of the true distinction of Phanero- 
gams into Angiosperms and Gymnosperms. 
Lindley later laid too much stress on _physio- 
logical characters, such as parallel and net-veined or 
reticulate veins in Monocotyledons and Dicoty- 
ledons. ; 
Endlicher, 1836 to 1840, invented a system based 
on growth of stems (as regards spermatophytes), and 
included in Amphibrya Monocotyledons, and in 
Acramphibrya Conifers and Dicotyledons—a further 
defect which may be responsible for that noticed in 
Bentham and Hooker’s system. And the Gymno- 
sperms are given the same value as Apetalz, Gamo- 
petalz, and Dialypetalz. 
