356 THE CROWFOOT FAMILY 



A monkshood is like a columbine except for irregularity of 

 sepals and staminodes, absence of inner staminodes, indeterminate 

 inflorescence, simplicity of leaves, and sometimes fewer carpels. 



All the alcove genera agree in having numerous ovules, all of 

 which may become seeds, contained in several or many carpels 

 which become dry and dehiscent in fruit. 



In Actsea the carpels are reduced to one, which becomes fleshy 

 and indehiscent in fruit; the staminodes may be fewer, both they 

 and the sepals are regular; and the leaves are ternately decompound: 

 otherwise the genus resembles Aconitum. 



Passing now to Anemone we find its most striking differences 

 from Caltha and the other genera already described to be the im- 

 perfect development of several of the ovules in each carpel, the 

 ripening of only one ovule, the indehiscence of the fruit, and the 

 possession of an involucre of two or three bracts. In these respects 

 it forms a link between our type genus and Clematis where the 

 rudimentary ovules are commonly fewer, and all the leaves (like 

 the bracts in some species of Anemone) are opposite. 



A still further divergence in Clematis appears in the occasional 

 imperfection of the flowers, the valvate aestivation of the sepals, 

 the ternate or pinnate nervation of the leaves, and the climbing 

 habit and woody stem sometimes developed. 



In Ranunculus we find a still further reduction of the ovules; 

 an invariable presence of both essential organs and staminodes; 

 imbricate aestivation of the sepals: alternate, palmate, simple leaves; 

 and sometimes annual duration: thus being in some respects more 

 nearly like Caltha, while in others it is more divergent. 



Finally, an extreme of divergence by reduction or simplification 

 is reached in the mouse-tails which may be regarded as annual crow- 

 foots with only about five stamens, staminodes, and sepals, bractless, 

 solitary flowers, and leaves with unbranched or obscure nervation. 

 It may seem a long way from such plants to peonies; but, as we see, 

 there are intermediate links binding them pretty closely together. 



As the student examines other members of the same famil}'- he 

 will find that they may be readily interposed as links in the same 

 chain with those already studied. Indeed, the transitions will 

 appear less abrupt than between the few examples to which we 

 have confined ourselves. His experience will be much like that of 

 a botanist with forms newly discovered. He compares them with 

 the forms already known and links them with those which they most 

 nearly resemble. Thus link by link are family chains forged in 

 botanical systems. As in the present case, the chain may branch, 

 and it might be questioned whether it would not be better to regard 

 the branches as separate families. That depends upon how close 

 the linkage appears to be, and as to that the judgment of experts 

 may differ. In any event the definition of any family properly 

 follows the attempt at natural grouping, and may require revision 

 with advancing knowledge or change of view. Such changes in 



