Origin and Development of the Conipositce. 163 
Other systematists follow these four more or less closely: 
Bartling’s system (4) is frankly Cassinian; Link (58) followed 
Cassini with several retrogessive variations; Lindley neglects Cassini 
and Lessing, returning to Jussieu (56) and later (57) following De 
Candolle. Endlicher (29), A. de Jussieu (47) and Eichler (27-28a) 
all follow De Candolle. Payer’s arrangement (70) is a curious 
atavistic return to the early 18th century and Baillon (3) fuses 
several pairs of Benthamian tribes. Hoffmann’s arrangement (42) 
shows no originality. One or two obvious sub-tribes are sunk and 
minor suggestions made by Bentham are carried out. Hoffmann 
gives an artificial sub-division of the Cichorieae, but Engler and 
Gilg (30) returned to the Benthamian arrangement. Wettstein (89) 
follows Hoffmann. 
Floras, 
The Floras of any given period usually follow the current system. 
Thus Meese (63) and Nuttall (69) follow Linne; Kunth (50) follows 
Cassini with slight variations; Gray follows first De Candolle (34-35) 
and then Bentham (36). Boissier (13) follows Bentham. 
American Systems. 
The Americans show a tendency to raise the status of thegroups: 
thus Jepson (45) raises the Ambrosinae and Madinas to the rank of 
tribes ; Britton and Browne (14) raise the Ambrosinae and Cichorieae 
to the rank of families ; J. K. Small (79) follows Britton and Browne, 
and Bessey (11) raises all the tribes and the Ambrosinae to the rank of 
families, making fourteen in all. 
Special Memoirs. 
Don (25) and Schultz-Bipontinus (78) attempted classifications 
of the Cichorieae. Nees (67) and Burgess (16) have dealt with the 
Asters and Delpino (22) proposed a new sub-division of the Senecion- 
idefe of Lessing, but these isolated memoirs have had no effect on 
the general classification of the family. 
Conclusion. 
From Table I it will be obvious that the history of the classifi¬ 
cation of the Compositae is clearly divided into two epochs, pre- 
Cassinian and Cassinian, with little or no advance from Theophrastus 
until the few decades immediately preceding Cassini, in which some 
slight indications are given of the origin of the ideas of a few of 
the tribes afterwards defined by the master. The half century 
following Cassini was marked chiefly by the burying of his classic 
memoirs by Lessing and De Candolle and the present Benthamian 
period is nothing more than a return to the teaching of the greatest 
of all synantherologists. 
