54 ERYTHEA. 



taining a maximum, the otlier a minimum of genera; while 

 some, less experienced and less philosophical, but bent upon 

 taking middle ground between these extremes, fall inevitably 

 into very glaring inconsistencies, here presenting unnatural 

 amalgamations of genera, and there, the most empirical and 

 forced segregations, I shall cite a few instances of this 



diversity of view. 



Doubtless the most profound and elaborate monograph 

 that has been written upon any part of this group is Nees ab 

 Esenbeck's volume on the Asteress, It was the result of the 

 observations of half a lifetime on the asters and their nearest 

 allies; and the genus Aster of Tournefort, of Linnaeus and 

 of Willdenow this author divides into twelve. Of other 

 eminent specialists in this same field, Cassini, the principal 

 one, is almost wholly with him in this view of the limits of 

 the genera. DeCandolle only here and there dissents; 

 Lessing is only a little more conservative; and Nuttall, the 

 most acute and gifted among specialists in American Com- 

 posit^e is quite with Nees; and not a few of the genera of Nees 

 and of Cassini have been supported by all authorities until 

 Professor Baillon and Dr. Otto Kuntze. But now, a man of 

 Baillon's vast experience and deep research remands to Aster 

 all the genera which the illustrious specialists had taken out 

 of it, and many more; while Dr. Kuntze still more recently 

 promulgates his opinion that even SoUdago^ as well all those 

 long series of species named under Chrysopsis and Ajjlo- 

 pappus and Bigelovia^ in recent books, are but species of the 



genus Aster. 



Such extremes of judgment respecting the limits of genera 



oblige one to enquire into the phytographic principles of 



those who pronounce them. What, with Nees and Cassini and 



Nuttall, is the criterion of a genus in this tribe? And what 



is that criterion with men who take the opposite ground? 



The universal axiom accepted by Tournefort, reiterated by 



Linnseus, and emphasized by many of the leading systema- 



tists of this and of preceding centuries is: That the character 



depends upon the genus, not the genus upon the character. 



