BUBANI’S FLORA PYRENAEA 43 
have disputed that opinion; and Bubani, as we see, with the 
help of the parenthesis, gives credit to the three botanical authors 
who had most to do with the founding of these two almost funda- 
mental groups. 
The authors whose names are in parenthesis are they who 
early indicated more or less clearly those distinctions. Theo- 
phrastus of Eresus, who wrote immortal chapters of botany more 
than two centuries before the Christian era, and Andrew Cesalpin 
who more than seventeen centuries after Theophrastus first called 
attention to, and emphasized this distinction (1583), also giving 
the first intimation of its taxonomic importance. Then outside 
the parenthesis, therefore in really immediate juxtaposition to 
the group name itself, the name of Ray is placed, because he 
was first—and that just 99 years after Cesalpin—to name these 
two Grand Divisions of the Phanerogams, the Dicotyledones and 
the Monocotyledones, and also actually to distribute the seed 
plants according to these distinctions. If, in the natural classifi- 
cation of plants the difficult and great thing is the laying of 
foundations and the indicating of primary and fundamental 
groups—something which it would be temerarious to call in 
question—then, what name is there in the long list of British 
botanists of worth greater than that of John Ray? To one who 
rejoices in botanical consistency, truthfulness and fair dealing, 
it is a delight to read, though by the mere accident of bibliog- 
raphic citation, at the top of the first pages of a recent botanical 
masterpiece, the name of Ray. 
It will be seen by the second line of the same page that the 
first group subordinate to the Dicotyledones, that of the Gymno- 
spermae, is credited to Brongniart; also that there are no 
parenthetic authors placed before that one; this seeming to 
signify that the illustrious French Botanist, Bubani’s contem- 
porary, had both indicated and named the group. Here, however, 
one would have expected to see the name of Theophrastus again 
at least in parenthesis, for whoever reads the chapters of the old 
Greek founder as carefully as Bubani appears to have done would 
not be likely to overlook his having made and used the terms 
gymnosperm and angiosperm, and that was more than 2000 years 
before Brongniart. Perhaps Bubani’s reason for the ommission 
may have been that the Theophrastan use of the terms and 
