z 6 o B O T 
the general laws of produdion, that it mud be noted. It 
would have militated againft all the golden aphorilins of 
Philofophia Botanica, to have palled over thefe circum- 
ftarices in filence. At once the whole dodrine of filia¬ 
tion, the very life of the fcxnal fyftem, mull have been 
done away ; and the fyftem itfelf mult have tottered from 
its foundation. The fexual fyftem, it is true, is highly 
artificial; yet not fo much fo but that it (Indies to coincide 
with nature, and is confcious that it is in its higheft 
glory, when it falls in moll completely with thofe orders 
which nature herfelf has conflituted. Here it cannot but 
be anticipated by every good botanift, hoiv much of natu¬ 
ral order is vilible in each of thefe three dalles. 
“ It mull be admitted that the clafs Polygamia has not 
apparently fo much to urge in its own behalf, as thofe 
dalles which have juft been mentioned : for, whatever ano¬ 
maly appears in fome flowers, all plants, having always 
likewife hermaphrodite and regular flowers, might have 
been arranged in ihe other daffies, according to the num¬ 
ber of their (lamina, Sec. It mult alfo be admitted, that 
there is nothing of natural order obfervable in the plants 
of this clafs : but, fo far from any dcfcEl , the eonftrudion 
of this clafs has always appeared to us an argument of the 
foundnefs and firtimefs of mind which the illultrious Swede 
was known to poflefs. None of thofe who have thought 
-proper to let alide thefe dalles have advanced the fcience. 
All that was done has been to throw into feveral dalles 
that which Linnaeus, in per fed. conformity with the laws 
of his own fyftem, confined to one. How ever men com¬ 
plain, the fame monftrolity, the fame marks of polygamous 
diftindion, are to be adopted.— lidan ocu/i lucent, eadem fc~ 
ritatis imago. Certainly Linnaeus, by conftruding this clafs, 
rounded, if we may fo fay, the fexual fyftem. He argued 
that-every feparate feature deferved a feparate name. He 
numbered thefe features, and taught us to call them by 
their names.”— See Monthly Review for January, y 797. 
In offering thefe remarks, the Editors candidly difclaim 
the intention of throwing any cenfure upon Dr. Withering, 
or upon any of thofe who iiave gone before him ; their de- 
fign being only to fnbmit thefe hints to the confderation of 
others. For our own part, we profels to give our readers 
the Linnsean arrangement in its original form, asindifpen- 
l'able to every learner of botany, whatever improvements 
or alterations the fcience may afterwards receive. There¬ 
fore, having fulfilled our duty in pointing out the abolition 
of ihefe dalles, and the removal of the orders into different 
parts of the fyftem, we (hall proceed to ftatc the genera , 
according to the principles laid down by Linnaeus, 
Of the GENERA of PLANTS. 
'The genus, or genera, of plants, is the fecond fubdivifion 
in the Linnsean fyftem, and comprehends an aflemblage 
of fpecies, whofe (imilarity of parts and ftrudure, require 
them to be placed under the fame clafs and order; out of 
which fubordinate fpecies and varieties proceed. The foun¬ 
dation of all generic difiindions, refides in the differences 
obfervable in the ftrudure of the flow'ers and fruit. Hence 
all vegetables that agree in their parts of frudification, are 
to be put together under one genus; and all fuch as differ 
in thofe parts, are to be divided, The charaderiftic mark 
of each genus, is to be fixed from the number, figure, pro¬ 
portion, and fituation, of all the parts. But as there are 
few genera wherein all the parts are cotiftant in every one 
of the fpecies, we are obliged, wherever it is pollible, to 
fix upon fome one well-known fingle circumffance that is 
conftant, and this conftitutes what is termed the clajfic or 
cjfcntial charader. This in moft genera may be readily 
found : thus, the effential charader of felf-heal, eye-bright, 
inadwort, and fea.-cabbage or kale, lies in the denticles of 
the (lamina ; that of turmeric, humming-bird tree, Big- 
nonia, and Martynia, in a mutilate ftamen ; the ranuncu¬ 
lus is diftinguiftied by its nedarium, which is a pore in the 
claws of its petals ; hydrophyllum, or water-leaf, by the 
fame part, which in that genus is a doled chink in the la- 
cinias of the corolla ; and hellebore, and funnel-flower al* 
A N Y, 
fo, by their tubular nedaria; in fea-daffodil, the ftamina 
are inferted in the nedarium, which diftinguifhes it from 
narciffus; in henbane, there is a covering to the capfules, 
by which it is known from winter-cherry ; the mignonette 
has always a lateral nedarium, but varies in its corolla 
and piftillum ; the bell-flower has a quinquevalved neda- 
rium, but is inconllant in the corolla and capfule; and 
laftly, the flower-de-luce has a ftigma of fingular conftruc- 
tion, but varies in the beard of its corolla. 
There is, however, no one part of frudification that can 
be relied on as a confant charaderiftic mark for all genera • 
it being found, that the part which is conflant in fome ge¬ 
nera will be inconllant in others; thus, in the papaw-tree, 
the flowers of the male plant are monopetalous, and thole 
of the female pentapetalous ; in candle-bcrry myrtle, fome 
fpecies hav.e naked feeds, others berries; in the afti tree, 
fome have a naked flower, and others a corolla ; in gera¬ 
nium, fome have regular coroll sc, and others irregular; 
in flax, fome are pentapetalous, others tetrapetalous; in 
wolf’s-bane, fome are tricapfular, and others quinquecap- 
fular; and in trefoil or clover, fome a^e monopetalous, 
others polypetalous, fome monofpermous, and others poly- 
fpermous. This inconftancy of particular parts in many 
genera, has been a great fource of error amongft the ear¬ 
lier botanifts, who have parted many plants from their con 
geuers on this account. 
When the charaderiftic mark of any genus is wantin® 
in any particular fpecies, we Ihould proceed with caution^ 
left we confound genera that (hould be diftinguiftied. For 
want of this caution, the common heath and bale heath 
had been joined, but were parted afterwards on account 
of the two horns in the antherae of the common heath ; 
the adonis or pheafant’s.eye had been joined to the ranun 
cuius, but was parted from it again, on obferving that it 
wanted the nedariferous pore; and the aloe and agave had 
been blended, till it was obferved that in the latter the (la¬ 
mina w.ere inferted in the corolla, and not in the receptacle. 
When the charaderiftic mark of any genus is obferved in 
fome fpecies of another genus near of kin to it, a like cau¬ 
tion is necelfary on the other hand, left we Ihould multiply 
the genera by parting fpecies that Ihould ftand together : 
thus we find, that in ftonecrop, houfeleek, rofe-root, leffer 
orpine, fmall annual houfeleek, and navel-wort, the neda¬ 
ria adhere to the bafe of the piftillum; in wi)low-herb and 
tree-primrofe, the calyx is tubular; in the medlar-tree, 
wild fervice-tree, and garden lervice, the ftrudure of the 
flower is alike; and in both alnus and betula or birch .tree, 
there are three florets on the foiioleof the amentum. 
The more conftant any part of the frudification is found 
to be thro* the feveral fpecies of any genus, the more it may 
be relied on with certainty as a charaderiftic mark for that 
genus. Thus'in hypecoum the nedarium is conftant, but 
pot the pod ; the lily of the valley is conftant in its fpot- 
ted berry, but not in its corolla ; the cardinal-flower in its 
corolla, but not in its fruit ; the wild fenna in its corolla, 
but not in its pod ; and the vervain in its calyx and corol¬ 
la, but not in its ftamina and feeds. In fome genera one 
part of the frudification is found to be the moll conftant, 
and in others another ; but there is no part that is not lia¬ 
ble fometimes to a variation : thus we find the pericarpium 
variable in balfam, bell-floiver, primrofe, poppy, rock- 
rofe, fumitory, and ftrawberry-tree ; the calyx in water- 
lily and dog-wood ; the corolla in bilberry, lily of the 
valley, bafe heath, gentian, and flax j and the feeds in 
ranunculus and water-plantain.—If the flowers agree, but 
the fruits differ, the genus ought not to be parted : thus, 
in thofe extenlive genera, the fenna, French honeyluckle, 
mallow-tree, Syrian mallow, and fenfitive plant, fo great 
a number of fpecies have been ranged under the fame ge¬ 
nus, on account of the conformity in the flowers, though 
there is a variation in the fruit. 
That the figure of the flowers is more certain than that 
of the fruit, appears from many examples: as from the 
bell-flower, primrofe, fnap-dragon, wateivpiantain, Syrian 
mallow, rock-rofe, &c. but the proportion of the parts is 
* fubje£t 
