S97 



BOTANY. 



BOTANY. 



5f8 



Cup within glumes .... i'riocaulacere. 

 Carpels several, combined 



Placentas parietal .... Xyridacea:. 

 Placentas central .... Kestiaceie. 

 B. Flowers, or with a few verticillate leaves 

 a. Flowers on a spadix 



Fruit a drupe Pandanacece. 



Fruit berried ; leaves in bud, convolute Aracece. 

 Fruit dry ; anthers clavate, on weak 



filaments 



i. Flowers not on a spadix 



Aquatic, with pendulous ovules 



Pollen globose .... Naiadacea. 

 Pollen confervoid .... Zoeteracece. 

 Terrestrial ; ovules erect . . . Junraginacea;. 

 Aquatic ; ovules erect .... Pistiacea. 



Sub-Class RHIZOGESS (Ilhizanthee). 

 Ovules indefinite 



Anthers opening by slits .... Cytinacece. 



Anthers bursting by pores .... Raffletiacea. 

 Ovules solitary Balanophoracece. 



Class, ACROGENS. 

 I. With Stems. 



A. No distinct axis of growth 



Spores without elaters . . 

 Spores with elaters 



Spore-case with valves . 



Spore-case valvelesa 



B. A distinct axis of growth 



Spores with elaters 



Spore-case with valves . 

 Spore-case in cones 

 Spores without elaters 

 Spore-case on fronds 



Kinged .... 



Ringless .... 

 Spore-case on edge of frond . 

 Spore-case in an involucre 

 Spore-case naked 



Sessile in the axil of frond 



Stalked 



Ricciacece. 



Jungermanniaceo!. 

 Marctiantiatcrc. 



Jungermanniatar. 

 Equitetacete. 



Polypodiacete. 



Valves ... 

 Without valves . 



II. Without Stems. 

 Mycelium present 

 Spores in fours 



Hymenium naked .... 



Hymenium inclosed 

 Spore-case single 

 Sporules naked 

 Thallus obsolete 



Thallus floccose .... 

 Sporules inclosed 



In asci 



In a veil 



Mycelium absent 

 Aquatic 



Crystalline 



Cellular or membranous 

 Fresh-water chiefly 



Multiplied by zoospores 

 Multiplied by spiral nucules . 

 Salt-water 



Multiplied by simple spores . 

 Multiplied by tctraspores 

 Terrestrial 



Spores naked 



Sj i' >res in asci 



Thallus gelatinous 

 Thallus pulverulent . 



Marttitacea. 

 Lycopodiacar. 



( Andrteacea. 

 \ (Muici.) 

 liryncete. (Jfittri.) 



[A garicacerr. 

 (Fungi.) 

 Lycoperdacc?. 



Bolrytatfte. 



Hrhettacea. 

 Mu:oracea!. 



Diatomacecf. 



Conftrraeea. 

 Charactte. 



Fucaceai. 

 Ceramiacece. 



Graphidacta. 



C'ottemacta. 

 Parmetiacae. 



It will be seen that many of the orders are repeated in this analysis 

 under different divisions ; and this arises from the fact that this 

 analysis is artificial, and only expresses the general characters of each 

 order. Besides this, in the strongest orders, exceptions to some very 

 general points of structure frequently occur. Thus we have apetalous 

 and irregular-flowered plants in the polypetalous regular-flowered 

 order SamtnetUacta. With a little practice such an analysis as the 

 foregoing will enable any one acquainted with the structure of plants 

 to refer any particular plant to its right order, and on turning to the 

 order in the alphabetical part of this work he will find a detailed 

 account of its structure and properties. 



Before concluding this general article it may not be uninteresting 



just to glance at the steps by which the Science of Botany, more 

 particularly the systematic department, has attained its present 

 position. In doing this we shall confine ourselves to a mere sketch 

 of the progress that has been made in elucidating the great principles 

 of Botany by which its rank as a branch of philosophy is to be 

 determined. 



It is obvious, from varioxis passages in the most ancient writers, 

 that the art of distinguishing certain plants having medical virtues 

 was taught at the earliest period of which we have any written record ; 

 and that the cultivation of something more than corn was already 

 understood in the Homeric days, is sufficiently attested by the 

 references to the vineyards of Laertes and the gardens of Alcinous, 

 and by the employment assigned to Lycaon, the son of Priam, of 

 pruning figs in his father's garden. 



The earliest tangible evidence that we possess of the real state of 

 knowledge upon this subject is afforded by the remains of the writings 

 of Aristotle and his school. From the absurd superstitions of the 

 root-cutters (rhizotomi) of this period, it might be imagined that at 

 this time botany was far from having any real existence ; for it is to 

 them that we have to trace the belief in the necessity of magical 

 ceremonies and personal purification or preparation in collecting herbs : 

 some sorts they tell us are to be cut against the wind, others after the 

 body of the rhizotomist has been well oiled, some at night, some by 

 day. Alliaceous food was a necessary preparation for procuring this 

 herb, a draught of wine for that, and so on. But in fact at this very 

 time the Peripatetic philosophers were in possession of a considerable 

 mass of correct information concerning the nature of vegetable life, 

 mixed up indeed with much that was fanciful and hypothetical, but 

 calculated to give us a high opinion of their acuteness and of the 

 amount of positive knowledge upon such subjects which had by that 

 time been collected. It is by this school that botany must be con- 

 sidered to have been first formed irito a science. Aristotle, in all 

 probability, was its founder ; for it is obvious, from the remarks upon 

 plants scattered through his books concerning animals, that his 

 knowledge of vegetable physiology was for -his day of a most 

 remarkable kind. But as the books immediately concerning plants 

 ascribed to this philosopher are undoubted forgeries, it will be more 

 convenient to take the works of Theophrastus as our principal guide 

 to a determination of the state of botany at the commencement of 

 this 



The Pint Era. At the time when Theophrastus succeeded to the 

 the chair of Aristotle (B.C. 324) no idea seems to have existed of 

 classification, nor indeed was its necessity by any means apparent, for 

 Theophrastus does not appear to have been acquainted with above 

 355 plants in all. In the application of their names, even to these, 

 there was so much uncertainty, that the labours of commentators 

 must be to a great extent bestowed in vain in endeavouring to 

 elucidate them : for instance, Sprengel asserts that the name Aphake 

 is applied indifferently to the dandelion and to a kind of vetch 

 (Lathyrw aphaca), and Scorpios to a species of broom, to Arnica 

 Scorpioida, and to a kind of ranunculus. But while Theophrastus 

 was thus careless in his denominations of species, he has the great 

 credit of having attended accurately to differences in the organs of 

 plants, to some of which he gave new and special names ; the form 

 of leaves, their margin, the manner of their indentation, and the 

 nature of the leaf-stalk, especially attracted his attention. He 

 distinguished naked-seeded from capsular plants, and he demonstrated 

 the absence of all philosophical distinction between trees, shrubs, and 

 herbs, for he saw that myrtle-trees would degenerate into shrubs, and 

 certain oleraceous plants become arborescent. Cellular tissue is spoken 

 of as a sort of flesh interposed between the woody tissue or vegetable 

 fibre ; and even spiral vessels appear to be indicated under the name 

 of bis ; leaves are correctly said to have their veins composed 

 both of woody tissue and spiral vessels, and the parallelism of the 

 veins of grasses is particularly pointed out ; palm-wood is shown to 

 be extremely different from that of trees with concentric layers ; 

 bark is correctly divided into liber and cortical integument, and the 

 loss of the former is said to be usually destructive of life. The 

 nutritive properties of leaves are clearly pointed out, and the power 

 which both surfaces possess of absorbing atmospheric nourishment. 

 Some notion appears to have existed of the sexes of plants, contrary 

 to the opinion of Aristotle, who denied them to the vegetable 

 kingdom. In particular Theophrastus speaks of the necessity of 

 bringing the male dates into contact with the females, a fact which 

 had been stated quite as clearly by Herodotus (i. 193) 100 years before ; 

 but it i3 plain that he had no correct idea upon this subject, for in 

 another place he compares the male catkins of the hazel to the galls of 

 the Kermes oak. 



These points are abundantly sufficient to show that among the 

 Peripatetics a considerable amount of tolerably exact knowledge of 

 botany really existed, and that a solid foundation had been laid for 

 their successors. 



And in fact it appears that the impulse they gave to investigation 

 did for some considerable time afterwards produce a perceptible effect ; 

 for by the time of Pliny it is evident that a considerable addition had 

 been made to the stock of botanical knowledge. It is true that it 

 was much disfigured by the poets, who then as now appear to have 

 had only a smattering of the science of their day ; but it is incredible 



