3) Evolution and Classification. 331 
tem therewill be no confusion between the primitively simple 
forms and those which are so by derivation. 
An examination of our common systems shows them sadly 
deficient in the essentials of a scientific classification. This is 
particularly true of the treatment of the flowering plants, at 
the hands of English and American botanists. Nothing 
tld show better the conservatism of botanists than the 
fact that for a third of a century after the general acceptance 
of the doctrine of evolution, they are still using so crude an 
“°° of the group of plants with which they are most 
iliar, 
I may assume that it is well known to nearly all of us that 
the prevailing arrangement of the dicotyledons does not repre- 
“ the later views of any of the systematists. The fact is 
"the systematic disposition of the higher plants is at 
pesent a make-shift, maintained by conservatism, and a 
€ for the time-honored work of the fathers. It is 
™Xientific to let our practice drag behi 
7 nd the present state 
3 of our knowledge: P od 1 P 
it is far more so for us to cling to the 
Pinions of our fathers, through mere reverence, long after 
€ untenable. It is not to the credit of our 
€cond time she has persistently held to a 
ch considerations. For thirty or forty years 
orevolution must begin with those forms 
Or which, as nearly as may be, represent 
eee Pag the flower is a shoot in which the 
*tich the phyl] hed for reproductive purposes, that flower 
© Pititive whi °mes are least modified must be regarded 
Sanus that in which there is most modification 
