210 



NATURAL HISTORY OF PLANTS. 



these plants into Class V. of his great work, comprising plants with 

 a regularly cruciate corolla. Linn^us distinguished them both as 

 Siliqi/.ostf 1 and as Tetradynamece? thus bringing into the definition of 

 the group the character of the inequality of the six stamens. 

 Crantz, 3 dwelling rather on their uniformity in medicinal qualities, 

 named them Antiscorbutics. De Jussieu 4 retained the name Sili- 

 qnosce for his family (35); Haller 5 changed it to Cruciate. The 

 name Crucif era was finally adopted by Adanson 6 in 1763, and after 

 him by A. L. de Jussieu. 7 It is under this name that the order has 

 been made the object of the special work of many celebrated botanists 

 of this century. A. P. de Candolle 8 and R. Brown 9 stand in the 

 first place. Desvaux 10 and Kunth 11 also gave it special attention. 

 Endlicher 12 and Lindley 13 in their general works collected the im- 

 mense mass of matter on the organization of the Crucif erce that had 

 been accumulated by their predecessors, at the same time modifying 

 it to some extent. In 1857 J. Payer 14 studied the organogeny of 

 the flower, thus solving most of the contested questions as regards 

 its symmetry. 15 In recent years J. Hooker undertook, with the 

 assistance of his colleagues, 16 the very intricate study of this order, 

 for his Genera Plantarum? 1 wherein the number of genera is fixed 

 at one hundred and seventy-three. We have reduced this number 

 by ten, not to mention those which are utterly doubtful. 18 



1 Pralect., ed. Gies., 481. 



2 Gen., 329. 



3 Fl. Austr., 1. 



4 Ex AdatnS., Fam. des PI., ed. 2, 35 j in A. 

 L. Juss., Gen., lxvii. 



5 Helm., i. 192. 



6 Fam. des PI., ii. 16, 409. 



7 Gen. PI., 237 (1789). 



8 In Mem. Mus., vii. 169; Syst. Veg., ii. 

 (1822), 139 ; Prodr., i. (1824), 131. (Illustr. in 

 the Icon. Deless. ii.), from which we have taken 

 figs. 206, 245-247, 261, 262, 265-267, 300- 

 303, 306, 307.) 



9 In Ait. PTort. Ken\, ed. 2 (1812), iv. 7l ; in 

 Denh. Sf Clappert. Narr. (1824), 210. 



10 Journ. Pot., iii. (1813), 145. 



11 In Verb. Perlin. Acad. (1832), 33 ; Die PI. 

 und Fr. d. Crucif., Berlin (1833). 



12 Gen. (1836-40), 861, Ord. CLXXXI. 



13 Veg. Kingd. (1846), 351, Ord. CXXIII. 

 Prassicacece. 



14 Tr. d'Org. Comp. de la Fleur, 209, t. 44. 



15 These have been chiefly investigated in the 



following works : — R. Tin., loc. cit. — DC, Mem. 

 sur la Fam. des Cruciferes (I'aris, 1821). — 

 Howell, in Ann. Nat. Mist., x. 254. — Likdl., 

 Veg. Kingd., 352. — Seb., in Pull. Pot. de Gen. 

 (1830), 112.— A. S. H. & MoQ., in Ann. Sc. 

 Nat., ser. 1, xx. 318. — Moq. & Webb, in Mem. 

 Acad. Toil., v. 364. — Kravse, in Pot. Zeit., iv. 

 142. — Ditch., in Pev. Pot., ii. 207. — Schimp., 

 in Mem. Congr. Sc. de Fr. (1843), 62.— Chat., 

 in Pull. Soc. Pot. de Fr., viii. 370.— Clahke, 

 in Seem. Journ. of Bot. (1865), 5. — Gode., in 

 Ann. Sc. Nat., ser. 5, ii. 288. — Eichl., in Mart. 

 Fl. Pros., Crucif., 330, t. 68. 



!6 Thomson, in vol. v. (129) of the Journ. of 

 the Linn. Soc. (Preec. ad Fl. Ind.), & Bentham, 

 for the Genera (57, 965). 



17 It will be seen that we have based our study 

 on the result of these researches, which are, for 

 all that may be said to the contrary, the best 

 that have been as yet produced on this difficult 

 group, and certainly those in which the best use 

 has been made of all previous works. 



18 1. Agallis (Philipp., in Linncea, xxxiii. 12), 



