424 MISCELLANEOUS, 1850-1860 



of Monocots whatever. . . . Even Trecul, who considers 

 the rhizome of Nymphaea as exogenous, agrees that the 

 embryo is strictly dicotyledonous ! I have examined all 

 the genera in germination, Euryale, Victoria, Nymphaea, 

 and Nelumbium, and these are all germinal, exorhizal, and 

 dicot. in the process, besides the reticulated leaves and a host 

 of other characters that you must find some explanation of, 

 under your hypothesis. 



. . . You may console yourself with the fact that there 

 is no snare so great as an anomaly of this kind, in the way 

 of a correct appreciation of the affinities of families. Of 

 all branches of Botany the Systematic requires the most 

 extensive knowledge of structure, and the most careful 

 consideration of the relative (far more than the positive) 

 characters afforded by the organs. Just look at Lindley's 

 heterodoxies with all his knowledge, all arising from seeing 

 only one side of the question. The older I grow and the more 

 I study the affinities of plants, the more ignorant I feel, 

 for it is a most comprehensive study. This is my homily 

 on Nymphaeaceae. 



Richmond : Saturday, 1855. 



Dear Henslow, — Many thanks for your exposition of 

 Nelumbium. I think you have got hold of as pretty a 

 paradox as ever graced the pages of Schleiden ; however I 

 will not prejudice your observation till I examine again. 

 My great objection was however not against your making 

 Nelumbium Monocots, which I always thought beyond 

 assault, and which has never been assailed but by yourself, 

 but Nymphaea, the structure of whose embryo and plumule 

 is so totally different from your analysis of Nelumbium, 

 that if your theory holds good then Trecul's paradox will be 

 exactly reversed by you and Nelumb. will go to Monocots, 

 and Nymph, remain in Dicots ! ! ! I think however that 

 your genius and originahty have here led you deep into the 

 slough of Paradox and that your emersion when it comes, 

 will be with a rapidity directly proportioned to the buoyancy 

 of your good understanding and the density of the said 

 medium + the resihence resulting from the rapidity with 

 which you descended. ... I might have turned Buddhist, 

 Komanist, Hindu or Mahomedan on half the evidence during 

 the course of my travels. 



