"^^""■^ BOTANICAL SYSTEMS. 435 



In re-elaborating it, his son, Adrien, adhered to this defect, but intro- 

 duced some improvements. We will next glance at this latest form of 

 the Jussiaean system: 



System of Adrien de Jussieu. 

 Acotyledons. 

 Monocotyledons. 



\ Diclinaj i Gymnosperms. 



( Angiosperms. 

 Dicotyledons . . . <{ c Apetalse. 



Hermaphroditae ... J PolypetalsB. 

 I ( Monopetalse. 



In this case we see a very great advance in the recognition of the 

 Gymnosperms. In transposing the Polypetalae and Monopetalse he 

 also departed from the views of his father, and in this modern botanists 

 have not followed him, although, as remarked above (p. 431), this 

 change would undoubtedly be in the direction of a true natural system. 



4. SYSTEM OP MODERN BOTANISTS. 



From the systems of the Jussieus to that which prevails among bot- 

 anists of the present day the transition is slight. Linnaeus's Crypto- 

 gamic and Phaenogamic series are restored ; the terms " Bxogens " and 

 " Endogens" are introduced as synonymous with " Dicotyledons" and 

 " Monocotyledons," of which they take precedence ; the Gymnosperms 

 are recognized, and A. L. de Jussieu's order is restored for the Poly- 

 petalae and Monopetalae, for which latter name that of " Gamopet- 

 alse " is coming to be preferred, while for " Apetalse " the term Mono- 

 chlamydeae is substituted by some. The system, then, is substantially 

 as follows : 



Cryptogams. 



( ■ Endogens, or Monocotyledons. 



Phaenogams. 



f?r°?-^Sn1!S"- 



Bxogens, or J SP^'"™^- ^ Gnetaceae. 

 Dicotyledons. ' . ■ ( Apetalse, or Monochlamydese. 

 °^^"" } Monopetalse, or Gamopetalse. 

 sperms. ^ Poiypetalse. 



All modern text-books invert the order and begin with the Phaeno- 

 gams, bat whether advisable or not this is intended merely to facilitate 

 study, the higher forms being easier of comprehension, and does not at 

 all imply that our leading botanists believe this to have been the order 

 in which plants have developed. This inversion of the order, how- 

 ever, shows how completely the notion of development is ignored in 

 modern botany, and the system throughout rests upon the evidence 

 furnished by the organs of the plants as they are understood. It is 

 proper to say that at the present time quite a large body of the most 

 thorough students of vegetal embryology and histology, especially in 

 Germany, have rejected much of this system, and especially that which 

 concerns the Gymnosperms. These they prove in the most satisfactory 



