CULTIVATION AND ANALYSIS OF PLANTS. 
18. Bicornes — Two-horned; where the pollen is 
discharged by two pores or tubes, as in the 
Heath and Cranberry. 
19. Hesperidse — Myrtles. 
20. Rotacese—Wheel-form, as the Anagallis. 
21. Precise — Primroses. 
22. Caryophyllese — Pinks. 
23. Trihilatse — Maples. 
24. Corydales — Tufted, as the Fumitory. 
25. Putamineae—Pod-like-fruited, as the Caper. 
26. Multisiliquse — Many-podded, as the Hellebore. 
27. Rhceadese — Soothing, as the Poppy. 
28. Luridse — Lurid, as the Nightshade. 
29. Campanacese—Bell-like, as the Bellflower. 
30. Contortse — Twisted back, as the Milkweed. 
31. Vepreculse — Bushy, as the Daphne. 
32. Papilionacete — Butterfly-shaped, as the Pea. 
33. Lomentacese—With jointed pods, as the Cassia. 
34. Cucurbitacese—Curved, as the Gourd. 
35. Senticosse — Thorny, as the Rose. 
36. Pomacese — Apple. 
37. Columniferse — Column-like, as the Mallow. 
38. Tricoccefe — Three-kerneled, as the Spurge. 
39. Siliquosse— With long pods, as the Mustard; 
same as Crucifer a;, or Tetradynamia. 
40. Personatse— Masked, as the Snapdragon ; near¬ 
ly same as Didynamia Angiospermia. 
41. Asperifoliae — Rough-leaved, as the Borage. 
42. Verticillata; — Whorled, as the Holly; nearly 
equivalent to Didynamia Gymnospermia. 
43. Dumosae — Swelling, as the Viburnum. 
44. Sepiariae—With seeds hedged in, as the Jas¬ 
mine. 
45. Umbellatae — Umbrella-like, as the Parsley. 
46. Hederaceae—Ivy. 
47. Stellatae — Star-like, as the Madder. 
48. Aggregatae — Scale-like, as the Scabious. 
49. Compositae — With massed flowers, as the Sun¬ 
flower. 
50. Amentaceae —With catkins, as the Willow. 
51. Coniferas— Cone-bearing, as the Fir. 
52. Coadunatae —United at the base, as the Mag¬ 
nolia. 
53. Scabridae—Rough, as the Nettle. 
54. Miscellaneae — Miscellaneous flowering plants 
not embraced in the foregoing. 
55. Filices — Ferns. 
56. Musci — Mosses. 
57. Algae — Seaweeds. 
58. Fungi — Funguses. 
JVET7JEEE SYSTEMS. 
HE more recent botanists have developed various natural systems of clas¬ 
sification, based on the internal affinities and essential properties of 
plants. One of the great advantages derivable from such methods 
is the bringing together into the same groups the plants that approach 
nearest to each other in structural characteristics. They are of course 
more philosophical than the artificial methods, which depended mainly 
on outward similarities; hut the final determination of the numerous divisions 
and subdivisions of the vegetable kingdom, and the most appropriate nomen¬ 
clature, has not yet been reached. The investigations of specialists are con¬ 
tinually bringing to light new peculiarities, or differences that had escaped the 
notice of earlier observers. And hence every new writer on botany devises a 
method which is assumed to be an improvement on what preceded him. 
Our distinguished native botanist, Dr. Asa Gray, of Harvard University, whose ele¬ 
mentary works on botany have been declared by competent criticism to be “ unsurpassed 
in the language for precision, simplicity, perspicuity and comprehensiveness,” has formed a 
very elaborate system, mainly natural, but with a slight admixture of the artificial method. 
The following table, showing a natural system, has been constructed, mainly from the 
“Genera Plantarum” of the late Austro-Hungarian botanist, Stephen Ladislaus Endlicher: 
