70 
James Small. 
The Cichorieae being such a uniform group, the pappus here 
has received special attention. Cassini (11, Tome I, p. 380) used 
the pappus with other characters of the fruit, and Don (15) also 
used the pappus with other characters in his classification of the 
Cichorieae. De Candolle and Bentham followed Cassini; Hoffman 
(34) suggested a very simple but very artificial classification on the 
coroniform, plumose or pilose pappus but this was rejected as already 
mentioned (Chap. 1, Sect. A) by Engler and Giig (18). 
Taxonomic Value of the Pappus. 
The above is one example of the use of the pappus in taxonomy. 
As usual the use of only one character gives a very convenient but 
unnatural grouping. Another example is the importance attributed 
to this part of the fruit by Hutchinson (37 and 39) and his use of 
the presence or absence of the pappus in the separation of Brachy- 
meris and Marasmodes (37). This author considers the pappus 
“ one of the most important features in the consideration of the 
phyiogeny and affinities of the genera of this interesting family.” 
In accordance with this view he takes the absence of the pappus 
with the absence of glandular pits from the leaves as forming a 
difference of generic value ( loc. cit.). 
In contradistinction to the views of Hoffman and Hutchinson 
we have Bentham (5, p. 354) on the pappus as follows : “it is on 
the ripe achene that it has attained its fullest development in those 
innumerable variations which strike the eye of the most superficial 
observer, and which have been eagerly seized upon to characterize 
a large proportion of the thousand and one petty genera with 
which syantherology has been encumbered. Constant or nearly so 
in each species, with very few exceptions, the pappus will often, in 
a most natural genus, so vary from species to species as to make it 
a most difficult task to decide whether it should be neglected 
altogether, or, if taken into account,what modifications may be taken 
as generic, sub-tribual, or tribual. The presence or absence of a 
pappus or its degree of development is always of much less import¬ 
ance than its nature when present.” As a result of the analysis of 
the pappus forms given below the writer is of a similar opinion. 
The new genera, Triplotaxis, Hutchinson (36) and Cavea, 
Smith and Small (62) are examples of the value of the structure of 
the pappus when present, but the case of Bidens and Coreopsis 
makes an interesting commentary. Bidens is characterized by 
downwardly projecting barbs on the aristae of the pappus; Coreopsis 
is distinguished from Bidens merely by the upwardly projecting 
