RAY'S METHOD US, 1682 35 



ceae) as independent of, but related to, the Umbelliferae. For 

 this, as well as other features, Ray was indebted to Cesalpino 

 (conf. p. 11), as he acknowledges in his Preface. Nor does Ray- 

 fail to acknowledge his obligations to Joachim Jung, and to 

 Morison whose Preliidia and Historia he cites. 



But if Ray's Methodus Nova owed something to Morison's 

 Historia {Pars secunda), at a later stage the Historia {Pars 

 Tertia) was even more indebted to the Methodus Nova. It is 

 striking to observe how many of the groups constituted in the 

 Pars Tertia and in the Sciagraphia (see p. 23) agree with 

 those of Ray. It is this close association, amounting almost to 

 mutual dependence, of the systems of these two botanists, 

 that makes comparative criticism of them an impossibility. 

 Their relative position may, in fact, be summed up in the state- 

 ment that both of them adopted the principles of Cesalpino, and 

 that Ray eventually proved to be more successful than Morison 

 in their application. 



The Methodus Nova is something more than a system of 

 classification. The systematic part of the work is preceded by 

 five Sectiones which are morphological essays bearing the follow- 

 ing titles : I. De Plantaruin seminibus observationes qiiaedam 

 srene rales : II. De Foliis Plantarum seininalibus dictis: III. De 

 Plantula seminali reliquisqiie semine contentis : IV. De Floribtis 

 Plantaruin, eorumqne partibus et differentiis : V. De Divisione 

 Plaiitarnm generali in Arbores, Frutices, Stiff rutices et Herbas. 

 Beginning with the last, it is a discussion of the propriety of 

 retaining the old Theophrastian sub-divisions : Ray agreed with 

 Jung (see p. 15) that they are popular rather than accurate 

 and philosophical, but he retained them on the ground of 

 expediency. The fourth Sectio is an outline of the morphology 

 of the flower based upon Jung's Isagoge which Ray had received 

 in MS. from Dr John Worthington who had obtained it from 

 Samuel Hartlib, as is explained in the Preface. The first three 

 Sectiones are of peculiar interest : they give an account of Ray's 

 observations upon seeds and seedlings, with quotations from 

 Malpighi's recent work on the same subject {Anatonies Planta- 

 rum, Pars Prima, 1675 ; Pars altera, 1679), recognizing the 

 fact that the seedlings of some plants have two seed-leaves or 



32 



