207 
Modern Systems of Classification. 
fication by Engler; but each is very much nearer to this system 
than it is to that of de Candolle as still used in France or that 
modification of de Candolle’s system by Bentham and Hooker 
adopted in the British Empire. Practically all countries except 
France and England have adopted some system which is based 
on that of Eichler; and it is therefore one of the little ironies 
of history that the beginnings of this last system are to be traced 
to the writings of the English botanist, Lindley, and the French 
botanist, Brongniart. 
In the arrangement of Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons, both 
Wettstein and Warming begin with the orders having simpler and 
indefinite flowers, and follow with the orders having more complex 
and definite flowers. Discussing the question of the more primitive 
type of flower among living Angiospermae, Warming (p. 49) regards 
the acyclic types as “ undoubtedly on the whole older ; and the 
number of their leaves is large and uncertain. On the contrary, 
the cyclic arrangement in which a smaller and definite number of 
parts occurs is a younger stage.” 
The three hooks furnish three different views with regard to 
the relationships of the Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons. Warming 
follows Engler in placing the Monocotyledons first, but states (p. 84) 
that “ in what developmental relationship these two classes stand 
to one another and from whence they took their origin is uncertain. 
Some consider the Monocotyledons as a younger type which has 
descended from the older Dicotyledons, others vice versa. It is best, 
at any rate for the present, to place them as two equally independent 
lines parallel with one another.” Wettstein definitely looks upon 
the Monocotyledons as a monophyletic group which has sprung 
from the Polycarpicae (or Ranales). Both Wettstein and Warming 
place the Helobiae first among Monocotyledonous orders; and 
Warming arranges these orders as follows :—Helobiales, Glumales, 
Pandanales, Palmales, Arales, Enantioblastae, Liliales, Orchidales, 
Scitaminales. The chief differences in this arrangement and the 
one adopted by Warming in his earlier world are seen in the sub¬ 
dividing of the older Spadiciflora* into three orders, Pandanales, 
Palmales, and Arales, and in the placing of the Scitaminales instead 
of the Orchidales at the head of the class. Wettstein retains the 
order Spadiciflorae, and even places it at the head of the Mono¬ 
cotyledons, his arrangement being as follows:—Helobiae, Liliiflorae, 
Enantioblastae, Glumiflorae, Cyperales, Scitamineae, Gynandrae, 
Spadiciflorae. Lotsy treats the Monocotyledons as a diphyletic 
group. He derives them all from Dicotyledonous ancestors; and 
this indeed may be regarded as the present prevailing view, owing 
largely to Miss Sargant’s convincing statement of the case. 2 In 
Lotsy’s treatment, the Spadicifloral families—Araceae, Lemnaceae, 
Cyclanthaceae, Palmaceae, Pandanaceae, Sparganiaceae, and Typha- 
ce£e —follow the Piperales, a view which has received support in 
several quarters in recent years. The remaining Monocotyledons 
are placed by Lotsy after the Ranales; and his arrangement of 
these Monocotyledons follows that by Wettstein. 
Warming maintains his earlier view as to the position of the 
Juncaceae in the Glumales. In most arrangements, this family is 
1 See “A Handbook of Systematic Botany” by E. Warming, 
translated and edited by M. C. Potter ; 1895. 
2 See Ann. Bot., XXII, p. 121 ; 1908 ^and literature cited). 
