512 
PHYTOGRAPHY. 
BOOK IV. 
to designate. What is a coronula ? If it is a row of petals, 
why call it otherwise ? And it appears to be so, because it 
is immediately afterwards described as consisting of 10 — 12 
distinct petals. In the next sentence, hypogina is misspelt ; 
and the anthers are said to be bilocular and reniform, a cha- 
racter by no means essential ; while their being covered with 
glandular dots, and the mode of their attachment to the fila- 
ment, both of which should have been introduced, are omitted. 
Again, the germen, meaning the ovary, is said to be globu- 
lose : what is globulose ? Is it bullet-shaped, or round and 
small ? If the former, the term is inapplicable ; if the latter, 
the meaning is not expressed : it probably was intended for 
“ subglobose.” The capsule is said to be ovate, a quality of 
no consequence if it existed ; but not true, inasmuch as it 
appears from the figure to be round. The construction of 
what follows is what we call in English putting the cart 
before the horse : instead of ‘‘ valvis medio septiferis 10 — 12 
valvis,” it shonld have been, “ 10 — 12 valvis, valvis medio 
septiferis and all that is said about the attachment of the 
seeds might have been better expressed by two words, “ se- 
mina pendula.” It is said that they are attached to the top 
of the valves, in the inside : did any one ever hear of seeds 
being attached to the outside ? Let the character be properly 
cut down, and see what remains of it. 
Microsemma. 
“ Sepala 5 — 6, imbricata, persistentia. Petala 10 — 12. 
Stamina numerosa, hypogyna, submonadelpha : anther is bilo- 
cularibus. Omriw/Ti super um; 5 /t/Zz^s simplex; stigmatab — 6. 
Capsula 10 — 12-locularis, valvis totidem loculicidis ; semina 
solitaria pendula ; albumen carnosum ; radicula supera.” 
But it is not in inaccuracy of language alone, or in the 
misplacing the members of a sentence, that an essential 
character may be defective : it may be expressed with a good 
selection of terms, and a due attention to arrangement ; but 
the terms may be wrongly applied, or important characters 
may be omitted, or the author may not understand the struc- 
ture of what he is describing. Take, as an instance, the fol- 
lowing character of Carex, by the late Sir James Smith : — 
