PLANT. 
605 
Clafs IV. Cotyledon one. Stamens fuperior. 
Order 19. Mufas. ai. Orchideae. 
20. Cannae. 22. Hydrocharides. 
Clafs V. Cotyledons two or more in this and the re¬ 
maining Clafles. Petals none. Stamens fuperior. 
Order 23. Ariftolcchia. 
Clafs VI. Petals none. Stamens perigynous. 
Order 24. Eleagni. 
25. Thymeleae. 
26. Proteae. 
Clafs VII. Petals none. 
Order 30. Amaranthi. 
31. Plantagines. 
Clafs VIII. Corolla of one petal, inferior. 
Order 34. Lyfimachiae. 42. Borragineae 
35. Pediculares. 43. 
36. Acanthi. 44. 
37. JafmineEe. 45. 
38. Vitices. 46. 
39. Labiatae. 47 
Scrophulariae. 
Solaneae. 
27. Lauri. 
28. Polygoneae. 
29. Atriplices. 
Stamens inferior. 
32. NyCtagines. 
33. Plumbagines. 
Convolvuli 
Polemonia. 
Bignonias. 
Gentianas. 
Apocineae. 
48. Sapotae. 
40 
41, 
Clafs IX. Corolla of one petal, perigynous. 
Order 49. Guaicanae. 51. Ericae. 
Rhododendra. 52. Campanulaceae. 
Corolla of one petal, fuperior. Anthers com¬ 
bined. 
Cichoracese. 55. Corymbiferae. 
Cinarocephalre. 
Corolla of one petal, fuperior. Anthers dff- 
tinCt. 
Order 56; Dipfaceas. 58. Caprifolia. 
57. Rubiaceae. 
Clafs XII. Corolla of feveral petals. 
Order 59. Araliae. 60 
Clafs XIII. Corolla of feveral petals. 
5 °* 
Clafs X. 
Order 53. 
54 - 
Clafs XI. 
Stamens fuperior. 
Umbelliferae. 
Stamens inferior. 
Vites. 
Gerania. 
Malvaceae. 
Magnolia. 
76. Anonae. 
77. Menifperma. 
Berberides. 
Tiliaceae. 
Cifti. 
Rutaceae. 
Caryophyllae. 
Stamens perigy- 
72. 
73 ' 
74 . 
75 
78 
79 - 
80. 
81. 
82. 
Order 61. Ranunculaceae 
62. Papaveraceas. 
63. Cruciferae. 
64. Capparides. 
65. Sapindi. 
66. Accra. 
67. Maipighite. 
68. Hyperica. 
69. Guttiferae. 
70. Aurantia. 
71. Melite. 
Clafs XIV. Corolla of feveral petals. 
nous. 
Order 83. Sempervivae. 90. Melaftorr.te. 
84. Saxifragae. 91. Salicariae. 
85. CaCti. 92. Rofaceae. 
86. Portulaceas. 93. Leguminofae. 
87. FicoVdeae. 94. Terebintaceae. 
88. Onagrae. 95. Rhamni. 
89. Myrti. 
Clafs XV. Stamens and piftils in feparate flowers. 
Order 96. Euphorbire. 99. Amentaceas. 
97. Cucurbitacese. 100. Conifers. 
98. Urticae. 
One thoufand feven hundred and fifty-four genera are 
arranged under thefe Orders. In his fubordinate diftinc- 
tions, Juflieu recurs to the fituation and direction of the 
embryo, as well as the abfence cr prefence, the fituation, 
form, and ftruCture, of the various parts of fructification ; 
adverting alfo to great well-marked peculiarities in the 
rnflorefcence, foliage, and habit. One of his chief Angu¬ 
larities is his denying a corolla to his clafs of Monocoty- 
ledones, calling the integuments of the flower, whether 
Ample, or (as they appear to us in many inftances) dou- 
Vol.XX. No. 1394. 
ble, by one name of calyx, which in the tribes of Lilia- 
ceae, Scitamineae, and Orchideae, feems no lefs paradoxi¬ 
cal than arbitrary. 
The work of Juflieu is an admirable companion to the 
writings of Linnaeus, fupplying the defeCts inherent in 
his artificial fyftem, and throwing a brilliant and diftinCt 
light on his details ; but it is no more calculated to fuper- 
fede that fyftem than a grammar can fuperfede a diction¬ 
ary. Its excellent author has purfued the fuhjeCl in 
many fubfequent eflays, publiflied by the National Infti- 
tute of France, in which he has carried his enquiries, 
refpedling the ftruCture of various feeds, to a greater ex¬ 
tent than before, and has thence reformed the characters, 
or the places, of many genera. He has alfo fomewhat 
changed the appellations of his orders, at lead their mode 
of termination, reducing them to the feminine gender, 
and calling the Amaranthi, for inftance, Amaranthaceae; 
which is perhaps a more corredt and unexceptionable 
mode of expreflion, and certainly preferable to the Lilete 
and Proteeas of Mr. Salifbury. 
This iaft-named botanift was the firft in England who 
diredted his attention to the fyftem of Juflieu, and to a 
deep practical ftudy of Natural Orders. On this princi¬ 
ple he has arranged a Catalogue, or Prodromus, of his 
own garden, publiflied in 1796 ; except that he has taken 
his primary divifions from the artificial fyftem of Lin¬ 
naeus, which are founded folely on the number of fta- 
mens. This writer has prudently abftained, like Lin¬ 
naeus, from all definitions, or characters, of his orders. 
If Juflieu thought it incumbent on him to do otherwife, 
he has but difplayed the difficulty of the enterprife, and 
the fallibility of human fyftem when meafured by the 
ftandard of nature. So many exceptions encumber molt 
of his explanations, that they mean in fadt little or no¬ 
thing. They ferve however to Ihow where nothing is, 
or can be, known or fixed; and it would be unjuft to deny 
that they contain all the general information that is per¬ 
haps attainable. 
Mr Robert Brown, in his Prodromus of the Plants of 
New Holland, vol. i. publiflied in 1810, has given frefh 
celebrity to the fyftem of Juflieu, by wliofe leading prin¬ 
ciples that acute and learned work is arranged. He has, 
in feveral inftances, fubdivided the orders of the French 
author, or introduced new intermediate ones of his own. 
The definitions of his orders poffefs a clearnefs and preci- 
fion, in our humble opinion, fuperior to what are found 
in any writer on the fame fubjeCf. The infpeftion of the 
botany of a new world, as it were, in New Holland, 
where every thing is fo different from what was already 
familiar to this botanift in Europe, afforded him prodi¬ 
gious advantages as to the enlargement of his concep¬ 
tions of natural affinities. Perhaps in the detail of gene¬ 
ra, we may fometimes think he has carried his diltinc- 
tions too far; and, in the definitions of fpecies, that he has 
been prodigal of diftinClive marks, inftead of relling on 
a few clear and fufficient ones. Every writer has a pecu¬ 
liar character and merits of his own ; and Mr. Brown 
has abundant merits to compenfate any imperfections. 
He muft ever rank in the firft line of claflical botanical’ au¬ 
thors, as a worthy pupil of Linnaeus as well as of Juflieu. 
It is evident that the great hinge on which Juffieu’s 
fyftem turns, is the number of the cotyledons. The 
importance of this character has, from the time ot Ctefal- 
pinus and Jungius, been much infifted on. Linnseus, 
in his PrasleCtiones, p. 329, declares his opinion, that 
“the monocotyledonons and dicotyledonous plants are 
totally different in nature, and cannot be combined and 
that, “if this diftir.Ction falls to the ground, there will 
never be any certainty. Not that characters flrould be 
taken from hence, but feCtions when formed fiiould be 
confirmed by the cotyledons.” So jealous was this great 
man of any definitions of his natural orders! He iub- 
joins an exception to the above rule, in Cufcuta and, 
CaCtus, which, having no leaves, he fuppofes have noo.c- 
7 P ‘ call on 
