REVIEWS. 243 



but Thymelacese have certainly two or more carpels, though only one 

 seed ; Lauracese, as Endlicher perceived, have three ; Cassythaceae, 

 two or three ; and the fact of their being so pressed together as to 

 form or perfect only one seed, marks a lower type. The solitary car- 

 pel of Proteacese is due to great irregularity with close pressure ; and 

 even if this order is assumed to have no connection with Daphnales, 

 the single envelope, and the close adherence upon it of the stamens, 

 are characters opposed to high development. Granting that the 

 Perigynose character is not separable from the Hypogynose for any 

 useful purpose, it still indicates partial union of some of the floral 

 circles from near position and some amount of pressure. We presume 

 then, that if the Hypogynose structure is higher than the Epigynose, 

 the highest forms are those which are most completely hypogynose, 

 having all the organs and circles distinct, and that all degrees of union 

 place the plants displaying them somewhat lower, a principle which 

 certainly places Leguminosee below Eanunculacese. Besides, must 

 we not always place full development of all parts rudimentally existing 

 above the partial abortion of certain circles, and will not this compel 

 us to set Spiraea above Leguminosse, and generally the regular above 

 the nearly related irregular ? 



We should feel detailed criticism of the tables to be for us at least 

 premature at present, but there are some of the combinations which 

 we have much difficulty in conceiving to be true, and the evidence 

 does not yet come before us with any appreciable force. We want, 

 as a preliminary step, an attempt to estimate the real meaning or re- 

 lation to vegetable structure of every character that has been much used 

 by any eminent systematic botanist since the triumph of the natural " 

 method, with an examination of its comparative value, as drawn both 

 from reasoning on the importance of organs and modes of considering 

 them, and from experience of the results of their use. We should 

 thus know whether the value assigned to a character rests on good 

 scientific principles ; and though many points might for a time remain 

 unsettled or liable to question, we could not but feel our foundations to be 

 more solid, and our building more symmetrical and more promising of 

 satisfaction. 



In the meantime, nothing can contribute more to clearness of ideas 

 than simple, intelligible, and strictly accurate terminology. It is, we 

 think, quite time that the expressions, Monopetalous and polypeta- 

 lous, should give place to better terms. We never liked, as a matter 



