Inqulnj into the Structure of Seeds. 233 



is mistaken in saying the monocotyledonous plants never 

 have any plumula. They have not indeed that feather-like 

 configuration in the ascending point of their embryo which 

 gave rise to the name, but the organ so called is, and must 

 be, present. To dispute about the term is as little to the 

 purpose as to contend that the orchidece have no pollen, be- 

 cause it is not of a powdery appearance. 



From Mr. Lindsay's account of the germination of ferns 

 in our 2d volume, this family must be deemed monocotyle- 

 donous. Their germination seems at first analogous to that 

 .of mosses, as given by Hedwig in his Theoria> but the nu- 

 merous and branched cotyledons of the latter overset all 

 analogy, and indeed all classification of plants by the num- 

 ber of the parts in question. Nothing could be more unna* 

 tural than lg separate mosses for this reason from the other 

 cryptogamic vegetables, and therefore Jussieu can scarcely 

 believe these parts to be cotyledons ; yet it is not possible to 

 call them any thing else, and to suppose them a peculiar, ana* 

 hitherto unheard-of, organ, would but increase the diffi- 

 culty. Gaertner in the Introduction to his great work, p. 157, 

 tells us he has seen many cotyledons in several fuel also, 

 and that he suspects others of the more imperfect plants, 

 hitherto referred to the tnonocotyledones , may be similarly 

 circumstanced. It seems that too much, by far, has been 

 taken for granted in this department, though the parts un- 

 der consideration form the great hinge upon which all natu- 

 ral systems turn. It is only by analogy that the great family, 

 or natural order, of Hellenes has been judged monocotvle- 

 donous, an analogy which the fuci, if Gaertner be correct, 

 render very doubtful. The germination of the fungi is at 

 least equally uncertain. 



J mean not however by any means to invalidate the im- 

 portance of the distinction between such plants as have two 

 or more cotyledons, and such as have only one or none, 

 however inaccurate the terms commonly used to distinguish 

 them may be. Much less am T inclined to throw any need-r 

 less impediments in the way of those who labour at the 

 arduous and important study of natural classification, or to 

 detract from the well-earned fame of such men as Gaertner. 



and* 



