112 



tberefore, be a dynamic systein'^ The saine is true as to the system of the genera 

 in a family. This is very clearly seen in larger famiHes such as the Graminese, 

 RosaceaB, Saxifragaceae, and others. In the Gramiuese espscially, the genera 

 never stand in a serial relation. There are, perhaps, not two tribes which 

 can be sufficiently distinguished one from the other by a siugle characteristic. It 

 is by a combination of several characteiistics, that they are usually divided. 

 Of all the tribes of the GraminesB limited by the authors of both ancient and 

 modern times, none is said to have been exactly differentiated from the others*'^ 

 But, on the contrary, they are closely iuter-related and share different charac- 

 teristios among themselves. Accordingly, they, tribes ks well as genera, change 

 their limitations and members in accordance with different views. Their system 

 must, therefore, necessarily be a changeable one. The same is true as to the 

 species belonging to a large genus. They always stand in an inter-relation, but 

 not in serial relation. Such a system of treating and denoting inter-relations in 

 the dynamic views of species, genera or famiHes, I propose to call the dynamic 

 system in the natural classification of plants. Although the same system can be 

 appHed to the whole vegetable kingdom, I shall, in the present paper, Hmit myself 

 to the Angiospermso which group is more famiHar to me than other gi-oups. 



Those who insist upon the view that the natm-al system should be a 

 static one and that, therefore, only one real system is possible stiU beHeve the 

 evohition theory in the seuse j;hat, wliile speoies have been seriaUy developsd, 

 they have always retained divei-se in their characters. Ou the bther liand, 

 those who think that it is not always necessary that species should be developed 

 seriaUy or invariably exhibit divergent cliaractei« ; and who also Ijeleve that'^ 

 species are not only able of themselves to turn out differeiit species through 



1) I desire to call my readers' attention to tlie fa<?t tbat the statements about tbe dynamic 

 system are to be beld only in tbe case of a comj)arison of members (plants) Mbicb sbould all 

 belong to tbe same group or sbould all belong to different groups of tbe same rank. Tbe state- 

 ments are not to be applied in tbe case of a comparison of members, some of wbicb belong to 

 tbe same group, wbile otbers belong to diflferent groups. In tbe latter case, tbe relations of tbe 

 members belonging to tbe same group are less dynamic tban tbose of members belor^rlng to 

 di£Eerent groups. For example, in comparing tbe plum, cberry, and cucumber, we see tbat tbe 

 relations between tbe former two are always more close (or less dynamic) tban tbose between 

 eitber of tbe former two and tbe cucumber, even tbougb we consider tbem from every difiEerent 

 point of view. 



2) Nat. Pfl.-fam. H.— 2, p. 16. 



3) Wettstein, E. K. — Handbucb der Systematiscben Botanik, p. 49. 



