86 REVIEW. [March, 



Jussieu familias constituit. Classes nonnullas naturales jam liabuit 

 R. Brown^ Plinders' Voyage, vol. ii. app. pp. 539, 540." 



The seventh chapter is headed, '^ De formarum similitudine, in 

 lis conspicua quce eandem habent Organizationis normam ei conve- 

 nientia contraria, qua in singulis quibusdam partibus cernitur ; 

 sive de eo quod differt inter affinitatem et analogiam.'* To this 

 there is affixed a motto from Linnaeus, viz. " Nulla hie valet re- 

 gula a priori, nee una vel altera pars fructificationis, sed solum 

 simplex symmetria omnium partium, quam notse ssepe proprise 

 indicant." 



In this chapter the author lays down the law that there are 

 three kinds of" similitudes, and states that these have never been 

 observed, or, so far as he knows, only very obscurely by some 

 writers; and quotes 'Agardhii Aphorismis Botanicis,^ Lundse, 

 1819, p. 59. " Inde factum est ut primo analogia qusedam et simi- 

 litudo in diversis seriebus vegetabilium interdum cernatur, quasi 

 progressa esset Natura ad perfectionem per eosdem gradus sed 

 diversa via. Secundo, anticipationes formse perfectioris in plantis 

 inferioribus non raro obveniant; ut etiam in plantis superioribus 

 regressus ad formam imperfectiorem ; et tertio, formse illse nor- 

 malesj aut ejusdem gradus, aut superioris, ita interdum confluant 

 ut segre limites observantur.'^ Duplex est igitur affinitas planta- 

 rum," etc., or the transition from one normal form to another, or 

 what is manifested in anticipation of a higher form, or in a re- 

 turn to a lower form. 



The eighth chapter is on the analogies of different Orders, viz. 

 analogies of habit, of inflorescence, of the flower, of the fruit, of 

 the seed, of the embryo, and of the stem. 



From this long chapter, which is a full and clear exposition of 

 the author's views, it is evident that he means by analogy what 

 most writers call affinity. 



Whether all modern botanists have any definite distinction to 

 show between analogy and affinity we know not. Their definitions 

 are as follow: "Analogy, — resembling a thing (organ) in form but 

 not in function; or in function but not in form. Corresponding 



* Normal structure and perfect development : will the author excuse a question 

 from one of the less informed portion of the botanical community ? 



Is not the Mushroom (Agarictis campestris) as perfect as the Buttercup {San. 

 hiilbosiis) ? It is not so complex in its structm-e, but it is a perfect mdividual 

 though of a simpler organization than the higher forms of vegetation. 



