286 
N. Bancroft. 
For example, the younger de Jussieu published in 1789 (15) a 
classification which may claim to be the first complete and natural 
system. He proceeds from Acotyledons (Cryptogams) to Dicoty¬ 
ledons, making Monocotyledons an intermediate class. De Candolle’s 
system, published in 1819 (14), considers first Dicotyledons, then 
Monocotyledons (including Cryptogams), and lastly cellular plants, 
foliaceous and non-foliaceous, Monocotyledons again appearing 
between the higher and lower forms. The systems of Endlicher 
(1836-1840) (19) and Adolphe Brongniart (1843) (8) again indicate 
the general tendency to consider the Monocotyledons as a less 
highly developed group than the Dicotyledons, and nearer the 
lower or flowerless forms. 1 
This view is illustrated by Campbell (9, pp. 196-198) who in 
his “ Lectures on the Evolution of Plants,” published as recently 
as 1899, postulates the derivation of Monocotyledons from Pterido- 
phyte ancestors (or “ possibly through forms related to the Cycads”). 
The Monocotyledons in their turn, he believes, lead to the Dicoty¬ 
ledons through two lines, the Aroids and the Apocarpae. 2 
A notable exception to the above tendency among the older 
classifications may be mentioned: Linnaeus (41), in his “ Philosophia 
Botanica” (1751), arranged the genera he had established in sixty- 
seven orders, losing sight, apparently, of the distinction between 
Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons—at least he does not mention it. 
It is an interesting fact, however, that his first fourteen orders, with 
the exception of the twelfth (and this includes Magnolia and Lirio- 
dendron 3 ), consist almost entirely of monocotyledonous forms, some 
of the orders representing natural groups, such as Palmas, Gramina 
and Orchideae. The last orders in Linnaeus’ system consist of ferns, 
mosses, algae and fungi; so that it appears as if he considered the 
first orders to contain the highest forms—that is, those of a higher 
degree of development. 
Before passing on to the newer schemes of classification, 
mention should be made of Agardh’s grouping of the embryos of 
flowering plants (Diagram I). In his text-book of 1829-1832, he 
groups the embryos under the two main headings of Dicotyledons 
and Kryptocotyledons (1, p. 197). His Dicotyledons include true 
Dicotyledons—that is, all the forms we now consider as Dicotyledons, 
except the Nymphaeaceae—and Polycotyledons, namely Conifers. 
T See Rendle’s “ Classification of Flowering Plants,” (56), Chap. 1, for 
further information on these and other systems. 
* Cf. the exactly opposite view of Lotsy (42, p. 10). 
3 A suggestive point, considered in the light of recent research. 
