STUDIES IN THE CRUCIFERA.—I. 
1. CARDAMINE and DENTARIA. 
A. P. De Candolle, to whom will always be conceded a 
place in the first rank of authorities upon the family of the 
Cruciferz, says of Dentaria that it is ^ nearly related to Car- 
damine, and distinguished from it by habit. All authors 
have admitted the two genera, though without assigning 
them any characters! In a subsequent paragraph he ad- 
mits that so eminent a specialist as Robert Brown had 
united the two genera; but he overlooks the fact that a 
much earlier author, Crantz, had carried into effect the same 
proposition ; so that not quite * all authors ” anterior to De 
Candolle had really admitted the two genera. Moreover, 
the original Latin of his statement that authors had not as- 
_ Signed characters, but had received the genera upon habit 
alone, must be favored by a very liberal rendering, when we 
consider that Tournefort, the very author who first estab- 
lished these genera, distinctly attributes to Cardamine the 
marked character of having “ valves separating by a kind of 
elasticity, rolling themselves into a coil.”? Aud similarly 
inneeus always insisted upon the same character for Carda- 
mine, holding Dentaria distinct on account of its lacking that 
strongly elastic dehiscence. 
tween Linnzus and Jussieu appears Crantz, who unites 
the two under Cardamine (that name holding precedence 
over Dentaria in all the editions of Tournefort), ascribing to 
ACen dated dieat cosi, Pert 
! Syst. ii. 271. 
? Elemens, i, 191 (1694). 
(117) 
