WAED.) TYPES OF VEGETATION. 433 



CEYPTOGAMS.—Flowerless plants— Continued. 



Equisetmew.— Rash like plants, with whorls of leafless branches ; 



e. g., Calamites, scouring rushes. 

 LycopodinecB — Plants with scaly stems or trunks ; e. g., Lepi- 



dodendron, club-mosses. 

 Ligulatce. — Inconspicuous plants, of interest chiefly as appear- 

 ing to form the transition from the Cryptogams to the Phse- 

 nogams through the Coniferse; e.g., Isoetes. 

 Ph^nogams. — Flowering plants. 



Gymnosperms. — Plants having their ovaries open and the ovules 

 and seeds naked or exposed. 

 GycadacecB. — Trees midway in general aspect between tree-ferns 



and palms ; e. a., sago palm. 

 ConifercB. — The pine family ; e. g,, pine, flr, cedar, yew, etc. 

 GnetacecB. — A small family of leafless plants, interesting chiefly 

 as appearing to form the transition from the Equiselineae 

 to the Dicotyledons, through the Casuarinse; e. g., Ephedra 

 antisyphilitica. 

 Angiospeems. — Plants having their ovules and seeds protected by 

 closed ovaries. 

 Monocotyledons. — Plants that come up with a single blade, or coty- 

 ledon; stems endogenous ; e.g., grass, lily, palm. 

 Dicotyledons. — Plants that come up with two leaves, or cotyledons; 

 stems exogenous. 

 ApetalcB or Monochlamydece. — Plants having but one floral en- 

 velope (a calyx but no corolla) ; e. g., oak, willow. 

 PolypetalcB. — Plants having two floral envelopes (a calyx and a 

 corolla), the corolla consisting of separate petals ; e.g., rose, 

 magnolia, maple. 

 Gamopetalce or Monopetalw. — Plants having two floral envel- 

 opes, the corolla consisting of a single piece, or petal; e. 

 g., honeysuckle, catalpa, trumpet-flower. 

 The names contained in this table are the modern ones, and other 

 terms with, perhaps, about the same meaning will be found in the sys- 

 tems of classification of the older botanists, while in some such systems 

 quite different groups are recognized as primary. 



2. THE LINN^AN SYSTEM. 



The history of the progress made by botanists proper, without the aid 

 of paleontology, in the direction of the natural method, did space per- 

 mit, would well repay examination. I shall confine myself to presenting 

 the three principal systems in a much-abridged form, as perhaps the 

 most satisfactory way in which that progress can be indicated. The 

 systems to which I refer are those, respectively, of Linnaeus, of A. L. 

 de Jussieu and of Adrien de Jussieu, The first of these, the system of 

 Linnaeus, is introduced merely to show that it is not altogether an arti- 

 GEOi, 84 ^28 



