THANEROOAMIA : FLOWERS. 305 



sistence at a later period, e. g. Anacardium, &c. It differs still less from 

 the lowest internode of an axillary twig * than the flower-bud does from 

 the leaf-bud. Both are developed sometimes before the unfolding of the 

 bud (e. g. in the so-called gemmce stipitatce in Liriodendron, and the 

 flower-buds in Asclepias), sometimes during its unfolding (e. g. leaf-buds 

 in Tilia), sometimes not at all (e. g. lateral branch of Ligustrum vulgar e 

 and every flos sessilis). 



The simple forms of inflorescence just mentioned, may combine 

 again in manifold ways into compound inflorescences. We have 

 here to distinguish the homomorphous (pure) from the heteromor- 

 phous (mixed), e. g. the so-called spica of the Grasses is a spica 

 composita; the umbella of the Umbelliferce an umbella composita = 

 pure inflorescences. But here we must necessarily distinguish between 

 a capitulum and an umbel, originating from the combination of several, 

 and yet similar to a simple inflorescence, both from the actually simple 

 and the properly compound (capitulis capitatis, umbellis umbellalis). I 

 would propose for this the name polycentric, since in capitula and umbels 

 the undeveloped axis represents, as it were, a centre from which the 

 flowers go out. Such polycentric capitula and umbels occur in most 

 Labiatce, e. g. in Marrubium infloresc., capitula polycentrica spicata. 

 The panicles of most of the species of Bromus and Festuca are spicce 

 umbellatce umbellis spicatis, or spicce racemosas racemis umbellatis, 

 umbellis spicatis. The anthuri of Rumex are (polycentric?) umbella 

 (capitula} spicatce spicis racemosis ; the inflorescence of many Labiate, 

 umbettcB (or capitula) spicatce = heteromorphous inflorescences, &c. 

 But here the mistake of the present mode of treating the inflorescence 

 comes in, that definite forms of inflorescence are predicated fully of 

 particular families, and thus combinations of the most varied nature 

 included under one name. Under panicle are comprehended the most 

 heterogeneous inflorescences possible, and the definition can only be such 

 as " All inflorescences of the Grasses which are not spica composita 

 (spica)" therefore a definition logically incorrect. So in many systematic 

 works every inflorescence among the Juncece is called an anthela ; but 

 how is it possible to distinguish this multiplicity of inflorescences by one 

 name, if we hold views at all sound of scientific terminology ? Is it not 

 the most frivolous trifling with words to name umbels, capitula, spikes, 

 racemes, and all their combinations, anthela, and yet to distinguish 

 anthela, capituliformis, spicceformis, &c., when anthela cannot here mean 

 anything but inflorescentia Juncearum ? It is inconceivable that a man 

 scientifically educated (not merely taught) can seek and find science in 

 such ringing changes on words. And this not all : the term anthela, 

 although it has no meaning, must also be applied to the inflorescence of 

 the Cyperacece, which, with its stunted flowers combined into a spike, 

 is entirely different in its essential nature. The cause, indeed, lies in 

 this : It is found too troublesome, in the cases of very complicated 



* Link says it grows forth after and beneath the flower, and is thus distinguished 

 from the twigs. If he had actually traced the development of a few flower-buds, he 

 would know that there is nothing in this. Every branch-bud is formed, like the 

 flower-bud, as a gemma sessilis ; whether it developes single internodes longitudinally 

 afterwards is a matter which varies equally in both. Link says further, that it wholly 

 or partially withers with the flower (he should have said with the fruit or male flower), 

 and, indeed, falls off; a peculiarity which it shares with all annual stems (e. g. with 

 Aquilegia, Aconitum, umbelliferous plants, &?.), which therefore does not distin- 

 guish it. 



