THE CLASSIFICATION OF PLANTS. 419 



our celebrated countryman, John Eay, in the year 1682 ; and 

 imperfect as any scheme must necessarily have been at that day, 

 when the number of plants known was very limited, still his 

 arrangement was in its leading divisions correct, and has formed 

 the foundation of all succeeding systems. He divided plants 

 thus : — 



1. Flowerless. 



2. Flowering; these being again subdivided into 



a. Dicotyledons. 



b. Monocotyledons. 



Ray still further grouped plants together into genera, which were 

 equivalent to our Natural Orders, many of which indicated a 

 true knowledge of natural affinities, and are substantially repre- 

 sented at the present day by such natural orders as the Fungi, 

 Musci, Filices, Coniferse, Labiatse, Compositse, Umbelliferae, 

 LeguminosEe, &c. 



Next in order was the celebrated author of the most perfect 

 artificial system ever devised for the arrangement of plants, 

 namely, Linnaus, Avho, about the year 1751, drew up a sketch 

 of the natural affinities of plants under the name of Fragments. 

 Many of the divisions thus prepared by Linnseus are identical 

 with natural orders as at present defined, among which we may 

 mention Orchidese, Gramina, Compositas nearly, Umbellatse, 

 Asperifolite, Papilionace!», Filices, Musci, Fungi, &c. Some of 

 these groups had been previously recognised by Eay and other 

 botanists who had preceded him ; while others were then pro- 

 mulgated by himself. No characters, however, were given by 

 Linnteus to the above Fragments. These examples of Linncean 

 orders will show that while their author was engaged in the 

 formation of his admirable artificial system, he only regarded 

 it as paving the way to the formation of a true natural system, 

 which he himself states to be the primum et ultimum in botanicis 

 desideratum. 



JussiEu's Natural System. — To Antoine Laurent de 

 Jussieu, however, belongs the great merit of having first 

 devised a comprehensive natural system. His method was 

 first made known in the year 1789. It was founded upon the 

 systems of Ray and Touruefort, to which he made some im- 

 portant additions, more especially, in considering the position 

 of the stamens with respect to the ovary. The following table 

 which requires no explanation, represents his arrangement : — 



Class 

 Acotyledones 1. Acotyledones. 



{Stamens hypogynous. 2. Monohypogjmae. 

 Stamens perigynous. 3. Monoperigynas. 



Stamens epigynous. 4. Monoepigynae. 



£ E 2 



