162 
James Small. 
Adanson (1) reviewed previous systems and places the Cam pan- 
ulaceae next the Composite. He recognised some of the previously 
distinguished tribes (vide Table I) and followed Linnd in separating 
the Ambrosia group but retained it within the family. Jussieu (46) 
makes the “ antheras connatse ” a diagnostic character of the family 
and foreshadows the Arctotidese and Mutisieae in his Cinarocephalse 
anomalae. In his arrangement of the genera Gaertner (32) follows 
Pontedera in the characters (receptacle, pappus and ray) used and 
arrives at a similar result, recognising the Inuleee and Anthemideae 
in addition to Pontedera’s groups. 
Early 19th Century. 
In the beginning of this century Richard (74), Batsch (5) and 
Lagasca (51) followed their predecessors with little or no originality 
in the Composite, except that Rich used the divided or undivided 
style to characterise his two sections of the Synantheria. 
Cassini, 1813-1834. 
The founder of synantherology and the master in whose footsteps 
all subsequent students of the Composite have followed was 
Henri Cassini. As the result of a systematic analysis of all the 
floral characters he arranged the genera of the family into a series 
of 20 tribes with sections and sub-sections (vide 18, Vol. Ill, Synopsis) 
which have been retained as units during the various minor changes 
made by later systematists. There is no detail of morphology which 
escaped the notice of Cassini, and the present intensive study of the 
family by including physiology and geographical distribution can 
modify only slightly the grouping of the tribes. Even then 
Cassini had already indicated the existing relationships which will be 
emphasised later. 
Cassinian Period, 1820-1917. 
There have been three chief modifications of Cassini’s system. 
Lessing (55) by using only the style characters reduced the number 
of tribes to eight but retained practically all Cassini’s sub-tribes. De 
Candolle (21) followed Lessing with the addition of many original 
divisions of the sub-tribes. Bentham (8) returned to Cassini’s system 
because he appreciated the value of the characters of the stamens 
and he acknowledges this return (7) but claims to have arranged the 
family before he was aware his system was so similar to that of Cassini. 
The present system is, therefore, one reached independently by the 
only two botanists who ever studied the family sufficiently thorough¬ 
ly to be able to speak with authority. 
