METHOD OF TOURNEFORT. 



165 



Synopsis of the method of Tournefort. 



simple 



I Corollas 

 1 monopetalous. 



Corollas 

 polypetalous. 



HERBS. 



**{ 



5 Cruciform. 



6 Rosaceous. 

 Regular. </ 7 Umbelliferous. 



8 Caryophyllous. 



9 Liliaceous. 



**"* 

 Anomalous. 



Flosculus. 

 Composed. < 13 Semi-Flosculus. 

 14 Radiated. 



Irregular. \ 

 



Without petals 

 or apetalous 



r 15 Apetalous with stamens. 

 , I 16 Apetalous without stamens. 

 1 17 Apetalous without Jlowers 

 t or fruit. 



Flowers 



j >o talons. 



TREES. 



Without (18 Trees apetalous. 

 petals. {19 Trees amentaceous. 

 Corollas C 20 Trees with monopetalous flowers. 

 JU2J"^| 21 Trees with rosaceous flowers. 

 {. "petdous/'-J 22 Trees with papilionaceous flowers. 

 After having derived from the corolla the distinctions 'of 

 classes, Tournefort subdivided them into orders, or as he called 

 them, sections. These orders were founded upon the obser- 

 vation of the pistil, calyx, fruit, fyc. 



The first step in this classification, or the separation of shrubs 

 and trees was wrong. The distinction between a small tree 

 and shrub, cannot be accurately defined ; there are many 

 plants which we should doubt whether to class among large 

 shrubs or small trees. Two circumstances were, by Tourne- 

 fort, relied on as a foundation for this distinction ; viz. that 

 shrubs do not form buds for the future year ; and secondly, the 

 difference in the size of trees and shrubs. With respect to the 

 formation of buds, the distinction is not found to be invariable, 

 as some shrubs do form buds,, and some trees do not. With 

 respect to size, the variation, even in the same species, is such, 

 in different soils and situations, that it cannot be admitted as 

 a mark of distinction. 



Synopsis of Tournefort's method Orders Defects in Tournefort's classifi- 

 cation Difficulty of determining between buds and shrubs. 



