82 Artificial Systems and Terminology of [BOOKI. 



bore fruit again in a terminology which is as clear as it is con- 

 venient; the terms monoecious, dioecious, triandrous, mono- 

 gynous, etc., still used in the science, and the later-invented 

 expressions dichogamous, protandrous, protogynous, etc., owe 

 their origin to this correct conception of the sexual relations in 

 plants. But there was one great misconception in the matter, 

 which has not a little contributed to increase Linnaeus' reputa- 

 tion. He called his artificial system, founded on the number, 

 union, and grouping of the stamens and carpels, the sexual 

 system of plants, because he rested its supposed superiority on 

 the fact, that it was founded upon organs the function of which 

 lays claim to the very highest importance. But it is obvious that 

 the sexual system of Linnaeus would have the same value for 

 the purposes of classification, if the stamens had nothing what- 

 ever to do with propagation, or if their sexual significance were 

 quite unknown. For it is exactly those characters of the sta- 

 mens which Linnaeus employs for purposes of classification, 

 their number and mode of union, which are matter of entire 

 indifference as regards the sexual function. 



But though the notion that this artificial system has any inn- 

 portant connection with the doctrine of the sexuality of plants 

 is evidently due to a confusion of ideas, yet the progress of the 

 science has shown, that Linnaeus' sexual system did often and 

 necessarily lead to the establishing of natural groups for the 

 very reason, that the characters of the stamens which he 

 employed are entirely independent of their function ; for we 

 must regard it as an important result of the labours of systema- 

 tists, that those characters of organisms are shown to be of the 

 greatest value for classification, which are entirely or in a very 

 great measure independent of the functions of the organs. The 

 error, .which led Cesalpino to make the functional importance 

 of the parts of fructification the principle of his division, re- 

 appears therefore in Linnaeus in another form ; to find a 

 principle of division, he turns to those organs, whose function 

 appears to him the most important, but he takes his character* 



