the 
PHYSICAL ann LITERARY. 223 
: ‘Tuts objection againft the fexes of plants 
drawn from the /pulus, appears to be 
“ftrengthened by the anfwer made to it; 
which is this, ‘* Humulus duplex omnino eft; 
“* unus floribus fuperbit ftaminiferis, alter pi- 
« tilliferis ; idque quod frudtum vulgo vocant, 
‘* eft calyx tantum explicatus et elongatus: 
* hinc humulus, quamvis foemina, nec foe- 
‘* cundata, conos taman proferre valet. Hoc 
‘«¢ Tournefortium decepit,ne fexum plantarum 
“ apnofceret, quum /upulus (foemina) in hor- 
* to Parifienfi luxuriabat, fructibus quotannis 
“ onuftus; qui vero floribus gaudebat (mas) 
“* non occurrebat nifi in infulis Matronae et 
‘¢ Sequanae multum diftantibus (¢g). Idem 
*¢ fit in moro et bizto, cujus baccae calyces funt 
“* fucculenti; minime paricarpia, feu ova- 
ria” (hb). 
34. For Iam at a lofs to find wherein 
Tournefort was deceived. He gives an accu- 
rate defcription, as well as elegant figures, of 
the parts of the flower and fruit, as ftanding 
on different plants (i), without which the 
_ character of the humulus, in Linnaei Genera 
plantarum 
* 
(g) Tournefort, Hag. p. 69. 
(4} Amean. acad. 1. p. 99. 
(#)" Vid. T. p. 535 t. 309. 
