t ii6 3 



of the flower in plants. ProfelTor Magnoly of 

 Montpelier^ publifhed in 1720 on this plan; and 

 LiNN^us himfelf in 1737, but he did not purfue 

 it. 



Every method of arrangement hath its advan- 

 tage in fome refpedl or other; and it is furely 

 rather to be regretted, howfoever the flower may 

 claim the preference, that a method founded in 

 the diflin6lions of xht fruity fhould not alfo have 

 as it were a fecondary place in common ufe *, for, 

 as all artificial methods are only fuppofed to be fo 

 many fuccedanea to the natural one, a due attention 

 to each might tend to illuftrate the natural clafTes, 

 to conned them, and reduce the anomalies, and 

 fo far pave the way to the accomplifhment of that 

 fcheme, which, however, will yet by many be 

 confidered as quite impradicable in botany. 



LiNN^us was the firfl who conilituted the 

 fiarnina and piftils as the bafis of an artificial me- 

 thod of arranging plants ; and he tells us, in his 

 Classes Plantarum, he was led to this by 

 confidering the great importance of thefe parts in 

 vegetation. They alone are the effentials necef- 

 fary to frudlification all other parts, except the 

 mthera and ftigma^ being wanting in fome flowers ; 

 and the prefent philofophy of botany regards the 

 former as the male^ and the latter as the female 

 organs of generation in plants. As fuch indeed 

 they mufl be confidered analogically^ and in a phi-, 

 lofophical view yet, perhaps, the Unncean fyilem, 

 admirable as it is, would not have been kfs ac- 

 ceptable had the clafEcal terms been exprefTive 



only 



