vi 
Cyperaceae to De Candolle, as defined in 1805, or to St. Hilaire as circumscribed in the same year, 
or to A. L. De Jussieu, who already in 1789 adopted the same order under the appellation Cyperoideae, 
then we evidently act unjustly in not recognising prior claims ; indeed, so far as wording is concerned, we 
lose the substance for the shadow, especially as no necessity exists, to strive for etymologic uniformity at the 
sacrifice of fair priority. To overcome difficulties or ambiguities of these kinds, we could use the pre- 
position “from” (to be rendered nach in German and d’aprés in French) for indicating the originator 
of an order, genus or species, after the quotation of any later accepted authority. Indeed this principle 
was adopted already for a list of Australian plant-genera, published by the Royal Society of New South 
Wales in 1881; and had the scope assigned to the present pages admitted of it, the same rule would 
have been extended to the species so far as applicable. 
To accomplish the object of rendering this publication, as a commentary index, one for easy 
reference, the schematic form appeared the most eligible. But to bring it within the means available for 
issue, all specific synonymy and any secondary notations had to be abandoned. Indeed for these, in 
quoting the “ Flora” and the “ Fragmenta” throughout, all needful indications are afforded. The geographic 
notes had to be limited to the initial letters, indicative of our main colonial territories, in which respect 
a plan was followed, precisely the same as that adopted in 1866 for a geographic list of nearly one 
thousand species of trees, then already known to constitute the very varied arboreous vegetation of 
Australia (see volume of the Intercolonial Exhibition of 1866, and of the second Paris “ Exposition,” 
1867.) On that occasion also the terms Choripetaleae and Synpetaleae were already used, to distinguish 
the chief divisions of the Dicotyledoneae, while the sequence of orders, effected then, was also mainly 
the same as that followed in the present pages, the Apetaleae of Jussieu or Monochlamydeae of 
De Candolle having been merged into the petaliferous divisions. But the system, built up by 
these two great masters in botanic science, is in its main features so genuinously natural, that 
no subsequent research could bring about very material changes, except in the one particular 
direction above indicated, a design more or less happily carried out from the time of the earlier 
writings of Brogniart to that of the latest essays of Jean Mueller, because it was felt, that so 
long as the Monochlamydeae remained isolated and associated with the Gymnospermeae, so long would 
we have an imperfect natural system. To proceed in chief alterations further than this, would 
give a less acceptable system. Even among the Thalamiflorae and Calyciflorae, represented in Australia, 
as placed together by Bentham, we had already not less than 58 genera, which are entirely apetalous 
or contain species, in which the corolla remains undeveloped, leaving out of consideration numerous 
absolutely extra-Australian genera wholly or partly apetalous. Again in Haloragis, Myriophyllum, 
Cotula, Soliva and some other genera the corolla is absent in the non-antheriferous flowers, while 
even the very commencement of the Candollean arrangement is made with the apetalous genera 
Clematis, Thalictrum and Anemone, soon followed by the equally well-known Caltha. Furthermore 
the Euphorbiaceae, which in the train of their alliances must carry with them always the Urticeae, 
count among thelr numerous genera more than one third provided with petals. Besides, -in 
Proteaceae the floral envelope may be regarded as homologous to that of the closely allied Lorantha- 
ceae, with an absence of a calyx, comparable to the suppression of that organ in Diplolaena, 
Asterolasia and few other thus far exceptional genera. Again, a firm thread runs uninterruptedly 
through all the orders of Curvembryonatae or Amyliferae, whether placed in Thalamiflorae or Calyciflorae 
or Monochlamydeae or even as regards Plumbagineae into Corolliflorae; nor is there any real difliculty 
of finding for the rest of the Monochlamydeae proper places among naturally allied orders of supposed 
higher organisation. Nevertheless affinity is variously radial, not altogether uniserial, as beautifully 
demonstrated already by Linné in his map of ordinal alliances of plants, published by Fabricius and 
Giseke, or as lucidly exhibited as long ago as the middle of the last century by Bernard de Jussieu in the 
Royal Garden of Trianon, through arranging the plants in a class-ground, a method adopted in our Botanic 
Garden here also already in 1857. In using the term Calyceae for the three main-divisions of the 
Monocotyledoneae, the author wishes it to be understood, that it remains an open question, whether the 
flowers of two of these divisons are to be regarded as mono- or di-chlamydeous. But if in the latter 
case a petaleous developinent is attributed to the flowers, we are then bound by homology to earry 
the term of petals also to Junceae even and Restiaceae, and a change in the naming of the three great 
sections would be needful accordingly. In suppressing throughout the epigynous divisions for unison 
with the perigynous, into which they often pass so gradually, simplification is aimed at, without causing 
any disarrangement, or without attempting alterations in the great received systems except nominally. 
Furthermore we should always regard the apocarpic orders as those of the highest development, because the 
fruit—the final effort of all growth—when multiplying into separate and complete carpic elements, 
exhibits the most advanced vegetable organisation. 
Much could it have been wished, to allot in this systematic census also columns of citation to 
those of the larger works, which are exclusively devoted to the Australian Flora. But Robert Brown's 
ever-memorable “ Prodromus” records only vascular Acotyledoneav, Monocotyledoneac, some Apetaleae 
