STRUCTURE.] RICHARD MIRBEL. 13 



rather than in a strict applicability to practice, it becomes 

 important that it should be founded upon characters which 

 are connected with internal and physiological distinctions 

 rather than with external and arbitrary forms. Viewing the 

 subject thus, it is not to be concealed, that, notwithstanding 

 the undoubted experience and talent of the writers just 

 mentioned, their carpological systems are essentially defective. 

 Besides this, each of the three writers has felt himself justi- 

 fied in contriving a nomenclature at variance with that of 

 his predecessors, for reasons which it is difficult to compre- 

 hend. 



If a complete carpological nomenclature is to be established, 

 it ought to be carried farther than has yet been done, and to 

 depend upon principles of a more strictly theoretical character. 

 I have accordingly ventured to propose an arrangement, in 

 which an attempt has been made to adjust the synonymes of 

 carpological writers, and in which the names that seem to be 

 most legitimate are retained in every case, their definitions 

 only being altered ; previously to which I shall briefly explain 

 the methods of Richard, Mirbel, and Desvaux. 



THE ARRANGEMENT OF RICHARD. 



Class 1. Simple fruits. 



1- Dry- 



* Indehiscent. 

 * * Dehiscent. 

 2. Fleshy. 



Class 2. Multiplied fruits. 

 Class 3. Aggregate or compound fruits. 



THE ARRANGEMENT OF MIRBEL. 



Class 1. Gymnocarpians. Fruit not disguised by the ad- 

 herence of any other organ than the calyx. 

 Ord. 1. Carcerular. Pericarpium indehiscent, but 

 sometimes with apparent sutures, generally dry, 

 superior or inferior, mostly unilocular and mono- 

 spermous, sometimes plurilocular and polysper- 

 mous. 



