METHOD OF TOURNEFORT. 



Synoposis of the Method of Tournefort. 



i25 



FLOWERS 

 PETALOUS, 



simple. 



Corollas 

 monopetalous. 



Corollas 

 polypetalous. 



1" 



Regular, 

 regular. 



Regular. 



Irregular. 



1. Bell-form. 



2. Funrid-form. 



3. Personate. 



4. Labiate. 



5. Cruciform. 

 G. Rosaceous. 



7. Umbelliferous. 

 S. Caryophyllous. 

 9. Liliaceous. 



FLOWERS APETALOCS 



10. Papilionaceous. 



11. Anomalous. 



fl2. Moscuhis. 

 Compound. ■{ 13. Semi-Flosculus. 

 1 14. Radiated. 

 [ 1 5. Apetalous, with stamens. 



16. Apetalous, without stamens. 



17. Apetalous, without visible flowers 

 or fruit. 



FL0\VERS APETALOUS. 



C Corollas 

 ) monopetalous. 



PETALOUS.] (.^^^ij^^ 



Ipolypetalous. 



I 18. Trees apetalous. 

 ' 19. Trees amentaceous. 



20. Trees with monapetalous flowers. 

 ' 21. Trees with rosaceous flowers. 



I 22. Trees with papilionaceous flowers 



After having derived from the corolla the distinctions of classes, 

 Tournefort subdivided these into orders, or as he called them, sec- 

 tions. These orders were founded upon observation of the pistil, 

 caly.v, fruit, &c. 



The first step in this classification, or the separation of shrubs and 

 trees, was wrong. The distinction between a small tree and shrub, 

 cannot be accurately settled. Two circumstances were, by Tourne- 

 fort, relied on, as a foundation for this distinction ; first, that shrubs 

 do not form buds for the future year ; and secondly, the difference 

 in size of trees and shrubs. With respect to the formation of buds, 

 the distinction is not found to be invariable, as some shrubs do form 

 buds, and some trees do not. As to size, the variation, even in the 

 same species, is such, in different soils and situations, that it cannot 

 be- admitted as a mark of distinction. 



Different species, even in the same genus, sometimes differ in their 

 stems ; some being woody and others herbaceous. Neither is the 

 form of the corolla to be depended on ; even in the most natural 

 families of plants, we find flowers of different forms, as in different 

 species in the natural order Solanea?, where the mullein is wheel- 

 form, the tobacco funnel-form, and the atropa bell-form. 



System of Linncsvs. 



We shall not now attempt to give a full view of the system of Lin- 

 naeus, as we are hereafter to consider it in detail. We introduce it 

 here merely to compare it with other modes of classification. The 

 removing of plants which are nearly alUed in their natural character, 

 to different classes, by means of any artificial principle of classifica- 

 tion, ought as far as possible to be avoided ; and although the system 

 of Linnaeus, as you will find, when we compare it with natural fami- 



Synoposis of Tournefort's method— Orders— Defects in Tournefort's classification 

 —Difficulty of determining between trees and shrubs— System of Linnaeus not en- 

 tirely perfect. 



11* 



