younger readers, Rossieu’s very pleasing descrip- 
tion of a compound flower, by the dissection of the 
common Daisy. It may not be unuseful here, to 
show what may be taken for, but is not, a com- 
pound flower ; and it shall be given in the same 
amusing author’s words. 
Speaking of the common Clover, he says, If 
you should take one in hand, seeing so many little 
flowers assembled, you might be tempted to take 
the whole for a compound flower. You would, 
however, be mistaken. In what ? say you. Why, 
in supposing that an assemblage of many little 
flowers is sufficient to constitute a compound 
flower ; whereas, besides this, one or two parts of 
the fructification must be common to them all ; so 
that every one must have a part in it, and no one 
have its own separately : these two parts in common 
are the calyx and receptacle. The flower of the 
Clover, indeed, or rather the group of flowers, 
which Jias the appearance of being but one flower, 
seems at first to be placed upon a sort of calyx; 
but remove this pretended calyx a little, and you 
will perceive that it does not belong to the flower, 
but that it is fastened below it to the pedicle that 
bears it. This then is a calyx only in appearance ; 
but in reality it belongs to the foliage, not to the 
flower : and this supposed compound flower is only 
an assemblage of very small leguminous or papil- 
ionaceous flowers, each of which has its distinct 
calyx, and they have nothing common to them but 
their being fastened to the same pedicle. Vul- 
garly, all this is taken for one flower; it is a false 
idea, however; it is a head of flowers.” 
