METHOD OF TOI/RNEFORT. 
Synoposis of the Method of Tournefort. 
nOWERS 
fETALOUS, 
Bimple. 
Corollas J ^^^l^''- 
raonopetalous. ] irregular. 
Corollas 
polypetalous. 
Regular. 
Irregular. 
Compound, 
1. Bell-form. 
2. Fumiel-form, 
3. Personate. 
4. Labiate. 
5. Cruciform. 
6. Rosaceous. 
7. Umbelliferous. 
8. Caryophylious. 
9. Liliaceous. 
10. Papilionaceous. 
11. Anomalous. 
FLOWERS APETALOUS. 
ri2, 
. ^ 13. 
U4, 
ns. 
I 16. 
1 17. 
Flosculus. 
. Semi- Flosculus. 
Radiated. 
Apetalous, with stamens. 
Apetalous, without stamens. 
Apetalous, without visible flower* 
or fruit. 
PLO\VERS APETALOUS. 
{Corollas 
monopetalous. 
Corollas 
polypetalous. 
TREES. 
18. Trees apetalous. 
19. Trees amentaceous. 
20. Trees with monapetalous flowers. 
21. Trees with rosaceous flowers. 
22. Trees with papilionaceous flowers. 
After having derived from the corolla the distinctions of classes, 
Tournefort subdivided these into orders, or as he called them, sec- 
tions. These orders were founded upon observation of the pistil^ 
calyx, fruit, &c. 
The first step in this classification, or the separation of shrubs and 
trees, was wrong. The distinction between a small tree and shrub 
cannot be accurately settled. Two circumstances were, by Tourne- 
fort, relied on, as a foundation for this distinction ; first, that shrubs 
do not form buds for the future year; and secondly, the difference 
in size of trees and shrubs. With respect to the formation of buds, 
the distinction is not found to be invariable, as some shrubs do form 
buds, and some trees do not. As to size, the variation, even in the 
same species, is such, in different soils and situations, that it cannot 
be admitted as a mark of distinction. 
Different species, even in the same genus, sometimes differ in their 
Btems ; some being woody and others herbaceous. Neither is the 
form of the corolla to be depended on ; even in the most natural 
families of plants, we find flowers of different forms, as in different 
species in the natural order Solanese, w^here the mullein is wheel- 
form, the tobacco funnel-form, and the atropa bell-form. 
System of lAnnceus. 
We shall not now attempt to give a full view of the system of Lin- * 
naeus, as we are hereafter to consider it in detail. We introduce it 
here merely to compare it with other modes of classification. The 
removing of plants which are nearly alKed in their natural character, 
to different classes, by means of any artificial principle of cla ssifica- 
tion, ought as far as possible to be avoided ; and although the system 
of Linnaeus, as you will find, when we compare it with natural fami- 
Synoposisof Tournefort's method-^Orders— Defects in Tournefort's classification 
•—Difficulty of determining between trees and shrubs— System of Linnasus not en- 
hrely perfect. 
11* 
