MeN T: RO) Di Ui GY Bis OUN, & 
Of the true Cuaracrers of the Accrecare, and the Umarenia’p Pranrs. 
| ie has been always feen, that the Affembled Floret? and the Umbrella’d Clufter had a 
4% {trong connection ; though fomething very diffonant in form divided them: ’Tis thus 
truth will flath at times upon the human mind, even where its cohitant light cannot fhine 
freely. The relation in this cafe has been known, though the connection was not dif 
covered ; and that could not be till this Clafs of Ageregates was formed. 
Ir has been faid, that if the Florets of a Tubulate Flower, as T, anzy, were all raifed upon 
long Footftalks, it would become an Umbell, from a Clufter ; this was a bold and not an 
injudicious thought; but it would fail in many things: for, 1. The true effence of an 
Umbell, though perhaps that has not been enough confidered, confifts in the Flowers being 
perfect, and their Footftalks being fubdivided. Unlefs each Flower has its Cup; it lofes its . 
perfect nature, and becomes a Floret; and unlefs there be a general and a partial divifion 
of Footftalks, there is no Umbell. What has been called, by an error in terms, a Simple 
Umbell, is no more than an Aggregate with long Footfalks. The Aftrantia and Statice; 
though hitherto placed in remote Clafles, differ in this refpect no otherwife than by a 
fomewhat greater length’ of Footftalk to each Flower in one than in the other. More or 
lefs, longer or fhorter, make no diftin@tion between Species and Species ; much lefs be- 
tween Clafs and Clafs: and it is no matter that the greateft names give fanction to fuch 
Umbells. The modern fyftems have no fuch Clafs as Aggregates ; for the received me- 
thod does not admit of their diftin@tions as a chataéter ; but in truth and nature, Scabious 
has as much right as Aftrantia to be called an Umbelliferous Plant. bg 
Iw the fecond place, if we could have got over this difficulty, and admitted fimple | Uini- | 
bells, yet the Tubulate Florets would not have made an Umbell, for they have no Cups. 
TuE proper character implied by any term, muft be eftablifhed juftly before we can {peak _ 
with that precifion which is required by {cience of any relation to it, or correfpondence 
with it. This being regarded, and the diftinctive AruQure ef affembled Florets, and of — 
the Umbell known, we may not only fee the general truth that there isa relation between 
the Plants with aflembled Florets, and the Umbelliferous.; but we thall find alfo that 
there is a connecting link between them. 
Aw Umbelliferous or Umbrella’d Plant, has the Footftalks of many Flowers arifing 
from one point, and again fubdivided in the fame manner; the fecond like the firit di- 
vifion, rifing from one point again: there is naturally an Involucrum at the bafe of each 
of thefe two divifions ; and every F lower is perfect, having its own cups. F 
oN Ow it is eafy to fee that Tubulate F lorets, if raifed on Footftalks, would not make 
an Umbell ; for, 1. There would be no fubdivifion or fecond rifing of Feotftalks from a 
point; 2. There would never be any fecond Involucrum, nor any thing in the place of 
it, although the general Cup might take the place of the firft; and, 3. Thefe would be 
Florets ftill, not perfe& Flowers, as the Umbrella’d Plant thould have ; for they would 
have no feparate Cups. | | | 
Bur though this advance from tte Affembled Tubulate Flower to the Umbell, cannot 
be made without a threefold violation of that unaltered and unchangeable law of nature, ~ 
which admits no gap in her gradations ; there is yet a method of connection to be found: 
_and this Clafs of Agereeate Plants affords it. 
B LET 
