HORTICULTURAL JOURNAL. 265 



That the plants' character is not consistent with Linnseus' disposition of 

 it, is certified to by Mr. Lpngworth, and that it is not dioecious, is attested 

 by Linnaeus' perfect flowering plants, and thus, each shows incontestably 

 that the other is wrong. But the inference cannot be drawn, that because 

 it belongs to neither of these sections, it belongs nowhere. If it is not per- 

 fect, not monoecious, not dioecious, the probability is, without Mr. Median's 

 or any other persons' observations, that the plant is polygamous, or in other 

 words, has the power of bearing either of the three by turns, according to 

 circumstances. In this class, and having this changeable sexual character, 

 the strawberry does not stand alone. The ash-leaved Maple, Honey 

 Locust, Kentucky Coffee, Ailanthus, Persimmon, Millet, and many 

 kinds of grasses, including the new celebrated JEgilops, have all this ten- 

 dency to vary in their sexual organs, by some apparently anomalous law, 

 equally as in the strawberry : so great indeed, is this tendency to change, 

 noted in the Linn?ean class, Polygamia, that all modern botanists who clas- 

 sify on this sexual system, reject the class altogether, referring all its re- 

 presentatives to the class to which its perfect blossoms belong, looking on 

 the want of stamens and pistils, as an abortion and not as an essential or 

 elemental want, as in all plants formerly referred to this class, the rudi- 

 ments of stamens and pistils, are always visibly present, awaiting but fa- 

 vorable circumstances to call either or both of them into perfect existence. 



In a true monoecious or dioecious plant however, the rudiments of sta- 

 mens in pistillate, or of pistils in staminato flowers rarely or never exist. 

 Thus, they have to be constant in their sexual character, and it is next to 

 impossible for them to change. We may expect to look a long time for an 

 Osage Orange, Paper Mulberry, Poplar, Willow, Oak, Chestnut, Pine, or 

 many other monoecious and dioecious plants, to change their sexual charac- 

 ters, because they have not the rudiments of all the organs necessary to 

 a perfect flower in their separate ones. 



I think I have explained clearly the difference between a Polygamous 

 plant, and one that is truly minoecious or dioecious. Those who wish to 

 judge for themselves in the case of the Strawberry, have only to observe 

 whether a pistillate or staminate flower have imperfect stamens or pistils at 

 the same time. If it have not, it is not a Polygamons plant, and those 

 who assert the changeable character of its sexes are probably wrong ; but 

 if it has, they are probably correct in their theory. I say probably, be- 

 cause nothing but the direct observation of the change, in fact, can estab- 

 lish the circumstance as a Botanical fact. "Whether this direct observa- 

 tion has or has not been made, it is not my purpose here to inquire. 



Julius. 



