106 



other, the potent a gene. There are more three different ways of making up 

 such groups of the same category by substituting (b) (c) or (d), in the yhuce 

 of (a). Also, there are certainly many other ways of grouping tha four 

 species so as to classify the species by takiug a combination of genes asl a 

 criterion instead of a single gene, such as a b, C b, a C, b Cj C d, or b C d, 

 a C d, a b d, a b C, and so forth, — each way being in agreement with a 

 natural i-elation according to each respective view. So the group3 themselves 

 are changeable or dynamic, according to whether we take this gene or that, 

 or this combination or that, as a criterion for classification. One way of 

 grouping can not be said to be more natural than others. Any one is 

 natural so far as it is understood as dynamic and changeable according to 

 views. But as soon as it is miderstood to be the only fixed, unchangeable 

 one, admitting no other way, it becomes unnatural. I shall give a few 

 examples of an actual instance, just below. 



Vello^dacese^^ (LiKiflorae) : This family is referable to the AmaryUidaceaB 

 according to one view, but it may be included in the Hcemodoracese according to 

 another view. Moreover, it will prove to ba a distinct family, if viewed from 

 a different standpoint. So the family itself is a dynamic one, variously 

 grouped according to the way of looking at the matter. 



Myoporaceee^^ (Tubiflorae) : According to one view, tliis family should be 

 divided into two, namely : — one, containing Myoporum, Phdidia, Bontia and 



Zornhiana, which might be incorporated into the Scrophulariacese, the other, 



represented by O/tia, which might be referred to the Verbenacese. Should this 

 view be kept, then the Myoporaceae must be disorganized and the Hmits and the 

 members of the Scrophulariaceae and Verbenacese should to some extent be 

 altered. Truly, the plants referable to the above three families share their 

 genes so as to be grouped in several ways according to views just as we 

 have seen in the four symboKzed species to which we have referred before. 

 One way of grouping can not be said to be more natural than the others. 



Loganiaceae^' (Contortae) : This group is regarded according to one view as 

 a distinct family ; but according to another view, as is proposed by Baillon, 



1) Nat. Pfl.-fam. H.— 5, p. 125. 2) Nat. Pfl.-fam. IV.- 3, b. p. 357. 



3) Nat. Pfl,-fam. IV.-2, p. 26. 



