606 
PLAN T. 
cafion for cotyledons. Linnaeus proceeds to obferve, that 
“ the germination of parafitical plants requires inveffiga- 
tion, but that he (hould greatly wonder if they have any 
cotyledons.” It appears that the line is diftinctly drawn 
by nature between plants with a Ample or no cotyledon, 
and others with two, or more ; and that, fo far, the prin¬ 
ciple of Juffieu’s claffification is correct. Whether all the 
genera that he has confidered as monocotyledonous 
be truly fo, is another quedion, which does not at all in- 
validate.fthe diflindtion. Some have not been examined, 
and feem principally to be referred to that tribe, becaufe, 
like others that indubitably belong to it, they are aqua¬ 
tics ; or at lead, becaufe of the apparent funplicity of 
their general flrufture. Doubts are expreffed on this fub- 
jeft by Juffieu himfelf refpedting Vallifneria, Cyamus, 
(his Nelumbium,) Trapa, Proferpinaca, and Piflia. Some 
other genera, ranked as acotyledonous, are involved in 
fimilar uncertainty. 
Sir James Edward Smith has given, in the Supplement 
to the Eilcy. Britannica, a curious and interefling article 
on the great conformity which there is between molt of 
the natural orders of Linnaeus and thofe of Juffieu. 
The parallel is carried on with great accuracy, and fhows 
the correct judgment and profound knowledge of that 
excellent botanid. 
As Linnaeus enumerates, at the end of his Natural 
Orders, 116 genera which he could not then fatisfaflorily 
refer to any one of them ; fo Juffieu, at the conclufion of 
his fydem. reckons up 137, which he denominates 
“ Plantes incertcBfedis .” Thefe are difpofed fynoptically, 
by their petals, germens, and ftyles. It is remarkable 
how nearly, allowing for new difeoveries, Juffieu accords 
■with Linnaeus in the number of fuch genera. Thefe lids 
have both been greatly ditniniffied by fubfequent confi- 
deration, or more complete information. 
The attention of botanifts, firfl diredled by Gcertner, to 
the minute and curious diverfities of flrudture in the parts 
of the feed, has greatly affifled Juffieu and his followers 
in correcting and improving the details of his fydem. 
Hence he has been led to favour the world with feveral 
effays on particular families, or orders, in the Annales 
du Mufeum d’Hid. Nat. fome of which have appeared in 
the very valuable Annals of Botany, publidied by Dr. 
Sims and Mr. Konig. In thefe, feveral of the difficul¬ 
ties, which originally embarraded their author, are lef- 
fened or removed ; but on thefe it is not our purpofe to 
enter. A new edition of Juffieu’s Genera Plantarum, 
which has long been preparing, cannot fail to prove al- 
tnod a new work; more valuable perhaps for the abun¬ 
dant information which it mud afford, concerning the 
characters and affinities of particular genera, than for any 
thing concerning a general natural fyllem, to perfeft 
which the fcientific world has not, as yet, fufficient ma¬ 
terials. 
As we cannot here undertake to detail Juffieu’s own 
corrections or improvements of his fydem, neither can 
we explain what has been attempted, with the fame de- 
ffgn, by the late ingenious M. Ventenat, or by thofe ex¬ 
cellent living botanids, M. Decandoile and Mr. Brown. 
We diall only obferve, that the French fchool has been 
much flattered by the latter having claded his Prodromus 
of the New-Holland Plants after the method of Judieu; 
and many a botanid enjoys this national triumph who is 
certainly not competent to appreciate the merit of that 
work. The plants of fo novel a country could not, at 
this time of day, have been prefented with fo much ad¬ 
vantage, to a phiiofcphical botanid, as in fome natural 
arrangement, however imperfeCt; nor will many dudents 
travel thither, to make them out by methodical invediga- 
tion. The touchdone of the book, however, will be the 
Plantes incertcc fedis; nor can it be judged, as to the merit 
of the fydem employed, till it arrives at that conclufion. 
He himfelf will furely not reckon it complete without 
a Linnsean Index. 
Ventenat, too fervile to Juffieu, explicitly contends for 
the natural method of claffification, as fuperfeding the 
artificial one ; and aims at proving this to have been the 
intention of Linnaeus. Yet nothing can be more pofi- 
tive to the contrary than the remarks of the latter, in the 
preface to his Ordines Naturales at the end of his Gene¬ 
ra Plantarum. He there declares that his “ artificial me¬ 
thod is alone of ufe to afeertain plants, it being fcarcely 
polfible to find a key to the natural one.” “ Natural Or¬ 
ders,” he continues, “ ferve to teach the nature of plants; 
artificial ones to didinguiffi one plant from another.” If 
it be faid that Juffieu, having invented a key, or a fet of 
diftindlive characters, to his orders, has removed this ob¬ 
jection, w^e would ajk, What becomes of his doubtful 
genera, as numerous as thofe of Linnaeus ? or moreover, 
How is any dudent, ufing his fydem analytically, to 
make out a Angle unknown plant ? Thofe err greatly 
who feek to improve the fydem of Juffieu, or any other, 
by refining too much on his didinflions, and fubdivi- 
ding his orders ; than which nothing is more eafy. Judg¬ 
ment and extenfive knowledge are difplayed in tracing 
out the mod effential points of agreement in natural ob¬ 
jects; not in exalting into unmerited importance the 
mod minute did'erences. Hence the very concifenefs of 
Linnaeus gives perfpicuity to his deferiptions and defini¬ 
tions. Thefe afford the mod inftrudlive dudy, whatever 
mode of claffification w-e may think mod convenient. 
We omitted to notice Mcench’s method, or fydem, 
which was publiffied in 1794.. His Claffes are eight only. 
I. Thalamodemon. 
II. Petalodemon. 
III. Parapetalodemon 
IV. Calycodemon 
V. Allagodemum 
VI. Stylodemum 
VII. Stigmatoflemum- 
VIII. Cryptodemon ■ 
Stamens on the receptacle. 
-on the corolla. 
-on leaves fimilar to 
petals 
-- on the calyx. 
_$ alternately on the ca» 
( lyx and petals. 
-on the dyle. 
-on the digma. 
--not vifible. 
This method profeffes to be an improvement of that 
conflrudted by Gleditfch. Its author appears to have 
been as much indebted to Laurence as his predecefior 
was to Bernard Juffieu. We rather wonder at his teme¬ 
rity in offering it to the world, after Juffieu’s work had 
been fo widely circulated and fo generally admired. He 
has taken his orders from the difference in the fruit. 
But, as fome of his claffes are very large, he has found it 
neceffary to make fubdivifions, in which he has had re- 
courfe to other parts of the flower. 
It remains only for us to notice the fydem of Monf. 
Lefebure, which he developed fo lately as the 6th of 
July, 1818, in a difeourfe pronounced before the Royal 
Inditute of France. He profeffes to unite the fydems.of 
Tournefort and Linnoeus. “Tournefort (he obferves) 
occupied himfelf only with the order which prevails in 
the corolla, without troubling himfelf with that which re¬ 
lates to the ftamina; and Linnaeus only occupied himfelf 
with the order that prevails in the jlamina , without paying 
attention to that exhibited by the corolla. It is thus 
that, analyfing feparately two organs, which exid fimul- 
taneoufly in flowers, they have fhown us completely how 
each organ is modified ; but not how their modifications 
are connedted with each other; and, neverthelefs,_ in 
order to have a precife idea of the fydem of Nature, it is 
not fufficient to confider two of its principal elements in 
their infulated date ; but we mud know, befides, in what 
manner ffie has proceeded in making them concur toge¬ 
ther: and this, therefore, is the important, but only, talk 
which Tournefort and Linnaeus have left to their fuccef- 
fors to complete. In fadl, plants being once arranged 
under the natural relation of the corolla and tlpe damen, 
the whole fydem of vegetables is expofed to view. Its 
explanations are followed without fatigue ; becaufe they 
all flow from a firfl known principle, and fucceed each 
other without confufion. 
“ What 
