'^^^■i bkongniart's classification. 429 



Without further discussing here the beautifully illustrated work of 

 Artis {supra, p. 406) who attempted, for. the most part unsuccessfully, to 

 create several new genera, we may now profitably compare the method 

 just reviewed with the one put forth six years later by the same author 

 in his "Prodrome." On page 9 of that work he gives the key to his 

 new classification in the following words: "La m^thode que nous avons 

 adoptee pour classer et d^uominer ces fossiles, est fondle 6galement 

 sur ces rapprochements plus on moins intimes entre les plantes fossiles 

 et les plantes vivantes." Laying aside the former method, based chiefly 

 upon the nature of the fossil, i. e., the part of the plant which hap- 

 pened to be preserved, he now makes bold to assign all these forms 

 to some of the great natural divisions of the vegetable kingdom as es- 

 tablished by the Jussieus and other botanists. But as already remarked 

 {supra, p. 406), geognostic considerations and a firm faith in the laws of 

 development led him to suggest some important modifications in this 

 so-called natural method, as may be seen by comparing the following 

 scheme from page 11 of the "Prodrome" and from page 20 of the 

 "Histoire des vdg^taux fossiles": 



L Agams. 

 II. Cellular Cryptogams. 



III. Vascular Cryptogams. 



IV. Gymnospermous Phanerogams. 



V. Monocotyledon ous angiospermous Phanerogams. 

 VI. Dicotyledonous angiospermous Phanerogams. 



In the present state of botanical science Brougniart's Agams would 

 probably all be relegated to his second group, or Cellular Cryptogams, 

 but in other respects this classification is pre-eminently sound, and seems 

 likely to be vindicated by the future progress of the science as against 

 some of the recent systems emanating from the highest authorities. 



To these few general groups Brongniart proceeded to refer the fossil 

 forms either as new and avowedly extinct genera, or, wherever possible, 

 as extinct species of living genera. This was carried entirely through 

 the system in his "Prodrome," and, so far as it went, the "Histoire" 

 afforded ample justification for his determinations in the form of full 

 descriptions and thorough illustrations. This latter work was in a man- 

 ner completed by his "Tableau" ^^^ in 1§49. The method of Brongniart 

 has, with few exceptions, been adopted by subsequent paleobotanists, 

 Une of these exceptions, however, is too important to be passed over, 

 although it has already been considered in certain of its bearings. This 

 is the system of Lindley and Hutton. These authors, apparently in 

 order to emphasize their dissent from the theory of development, re- 

 versed the order, placing the most highly developed forms first. They 

 also placed the Coniferse and Cycadese in the subclass Exogense, or 



^^ Tableau des genres de v6g6taux fos-iles consid^r^ sons le point do vne de leur 

 classification botaniqueetdelenr distribution gfiologique. Paris, 1849. (Dictionnaira 

 nniversel d'histoire naturelle. 



