POSTSCRIPT. 
3G 
of vegetables. The work will not be perfected till the arrange- 
ment made in such an analysis shall be the proper arrange- 
ment for the body of the work, to which I am sorry to find, 
though with some variation, that my former objections apply. 
There are alterations, which make some of the particulars of 
my foregoing observations not exactly applicable to the im- 
proved edition of this work ; they were, however, by no 
means intended as criticisms, but as exemplifications of the 
mode of classification to which I objected. But, as the 
arrangement is in some respects different, it is incumbent 
upon me to examine very carefully what it contains concern- 
ing the Amaryllidaceous plants, and, indeed, the Monoeoty- 
ledonous plants in general. 
I find them divided at the outset into six groups : — 
1. Epigynous; 2. gynandrous ; 3. hypogynous; 4. reticu- 
lately veined; 5. spadiceous ; 6. glumaceous. In the first 
place, epigynous means simply having the ovary below the 
stamens ; but the character given as an interpretation of it 
includes features of a different description, and the limita- 
tion, “ ovary inferior or if superior then the leaves either 
scurfy or equitant,” renders the division of Group 1 ovary 
inferior, and Group 3 ovary superior, nugatory. If the cir- 
cumstance of the leaves being scurfy or equitant is of primary 
importance, it ought to be placed before the feature which is 
thus made subordinate to it : but the fact is, at least as I 
conjecture, that Dr. Lindley does not think it of primary 
importance, and, if so, it ought not to supersede and nullify 
the division he has made. The second group gynandrous 
being a portion of the epigynous group ought not to be con- 
trasted with it, but made a subordinate division. The third 
group is characterized as having coloured ternary flowers, 
which has nothing to do with its title, ovary superior. The 
fourth makes a division according to the veins of the leaves, 
which l fear is not perfectly correct, and is loaded with the 
addition of very different features which are not peculiar to 
itself. The fifth and sixth are spadiceous and glumaceous, 
but I observe the spadiceous group does not contain all the 
palms, the true palms, though spadiceous, being placed in 
another group. The division, therefore, thus proposed of 
monocotyledonous plants into six groups seems liable to all 
the objections I felt to the adoption of the former arrange- 
ment. The point which principally concerns the immediate 
object of my labours is the order Hsemodoracese, which 
