Chapter II: Introduction (1)

The present volume represents in somewhat expanded form a course of lectures arranged by the Board of Studies in Botany of the University of London and delivered during the early part of 1911 in the Botanical Department of University College, London.

These lectures, which were ten in number, were widely attended by advanced and post-graduate students of the University and others interested in the subject.

The ten lectures comprised in the course were delivered by various botanists, the lecturer in each case being either a worker in the same field as, or in some other way having a special qualification to deal with, his allotted subject.

In view of the interest aroused by their delivery the hope found wide expression that the lectures might be issued in book form. At the time when the arrangements were being made for publication the University of London Press had not yet reached the publishing stage, so hospitality had to be sought elsewhere. That the book is issued from the Cambridge University Press is largely due to the good offices of Prof. A. C. Seward.

In consenting to publish _The Makers of British Botany_ the Cambridge University Press suggested that some additional chapters should be prepared so that the work might be more fully representative. This has been done so far as was possible in the time available.

The sixteen chapters forming the book include (1) the ten lectures, which are printed essentially as they were delivered, (2) six additional chapters specially written under the circumstances just mentioned. As a rule each chapter will be found to deal with a single Botanist; with the exception of the first and last chapters. In the former Prof. Vines has linked together Morison and Ray, the founders of Systematic Botany in this country, whilst in the last Prof. Bayley Balfour has expanded what was originally intended as a sketch of his father, the late Prof. J. Hutton Balfour, into a very interesting account of his predecessors in the Edinburgh chair from the year 1670 almost down to the present time.

The subjects treated, the authors and the order of arrangement are as follows:--

----------------------------+-----+------+----------------------------
Subject |Born | Died | Author
----------------------------+-----+------+----------------------------
*Robert Morison |1620 | 1683}| } Prof. S. H. Vines, F.R.S.
*John Ray |1627 | 1705}| }
*Nehemiah Grew |1641 | 1712 | Mrs Arber
*Stephen Hales |1677 | 1761 | Francis Darwin, F.R.S.
John Hill |1716 | 1775 | T. G. Hill
*Robert Brown |1773 | 1858 | Prof. J. B. Farmer, F.R.S.
*Sir William Hooker |1785 | 1865 | Prof. F. O. Bower, F.R.S.
*The Rev. J. S. Henslow |1796 | 1861 | The Rev. Prof. Geo. Henslow
John Lindley |1799 | 1865 | Prof. Frederick Keeble
*William Griffith |1810 | 1845 | Prof. W. H. Lang, F.R.S.
*Arthur Henfrey |1819 | 1859 | Prof. F. W. Oliver, F.R.S.
*William Henry Harvey |1811 | 1866 | W. Lloyd Praeger
The Rev. Miles Berkeley |1803 | 1889 | George Massee
Sir Joseph Gilbert |1817 | 1901 | Prof. W. B. Bottomley
*William Crawford Williamson|1816 | 1895 | Dr D. H. Scott, F.R.S.
Harry Marshall Ward |1854 | 1905 | Sir William Thiselton-Dyer,
K.C.M.G., F.R.S. | | |
The Edinburgh Professors |1670 | 1887 | Prof. I. Bayley Balfour,
| | | F.R.S.
----------------------------+-----+------+----------------------------
* Was the subject of a lecture in the University Course.

The first three chapters deal with the founders of British Botany, MORISON and RAY in the systematic field, GREW, the plant anatomist, and HALES the physiologist. These are pioneers and the names of Ray, Grew, and Hales must always remain illustrious in the annals of Botanical Science.

JOHN HILL, with all his versatility, belongs to another plane, but his inclusion here is justified on historical grounds, by the prominent part he played in making known the method of the great Swedish systematist Linnaeus, a method which took deep root and gave an immense stimulus to systematic studies in this country.

In ROBERT BROWN we have the greatest botanist of his day, for thirty years keeper of the Botanical Department of the British Museum. It is doubtful if any greater intellect than Brown's has ever been devoted to the service of Botanical Science.

SIR WILLIAM HOOKER was the first Director of Kew, and under his genial administration the foundations of that great institution were most truly laid. Born under the star of Linnaeus, his own researches lay in the systematic field--more especially among the Ferns and Bryophytes.

J. S. HENSLOW was for many years Professor of Botany at Cambridge, but it is his life as Rector of Hitcham in Suffolk that finds special prominence in the interesting Memoir which formed the subject-matter of his son's lecture. The account given of his educational methods will be read with interest in these days when "Nature Study" has been sprung on the world as a new thing.

JOHN LINDLEY was a man of the most amazing energy and his scientific output was prodigious. Though he attained high distinction in many fields of Botany, being an accomplished Systematist and Palaeobotanist, probably his greatest service was on the scientific side of Horticulture. Considering the scale of production, the work of Lindley maintains a remarkably high level. It is recorded of him that he never took a holiday till he reached the age of 52. His was the dominant personality in Botany of the early and mid-Victorian era.

WILLIAM GRIFFITH had the energy and power of endurance of Lindley, under whose influence he came. Trained to the practice of medicine he took service under the East India Company where he was able to devote the priceless intervals between his official duties to botanical travel, collecting, and the morphological investigation of Indian plants. The results of his brief but remarkable career are embodied mainly in his voluminous illustrated notes which were published posthumously in 1852. The name of Griffith has been happily linked with that of Treub, his brilliant successor in our own times.

ARTHUR HENFREY belonged to a very different type. Compelled by ill-health to the life of a recluse, his short life was mainly devoted to making known in England the great discoveries of the Hofmeisterian epoch. To Henfrey belongs the credit of being the first of our countrymen to recognise the full significance of the new morphology, the general recognition of which, however, he did not live to see. Henfrey was an extremely competent all-round Botanist whose single-minded devotion to his subject should not be allowed to fall into oblivion.

WILLIAM HENRY HARVEY is a representative of a numerous class among the followers of Botany in this country. A man of great personal charm and high culture, he was attracted into the subject from the love of collecting. His special field was that of the Marine Algae, in which he stood unrivalled. Harvey was an exquisite delineator of the seaweeds of which he was so enthusiastic a student. The memoir, based on his journals and letters, which was published shortly after his death, is a book well worth reading for its intimate sketches of the naturalists of his day and the vivid notes on his extended travels in the colonies and elsewhere.

MILES JOSEPH BERKELEY, like his contemporary Harvey, was a cryptogamic botanist. He was a voluminous contributor to the systematic literature of the Fungi over a period of fifty years, as well as being a pioneer in the field of plant pathology. The systematic collections accumulated during his long life form one of the glories of the Kew Herbarium.

SIR JOSEPH HENRY GILBERT'S outlook on plants was entirely different from that of any of the foregoing. He regarded the plant essentially as the chemical offspring of the environment to which it was exposed. His life was devoted to the study of soils and crops in conjunction with Sir John Lawes. To these classic investigations carried out at Rothamsted, Gilbert brought the trained skill of the chemist.

WILLIAM CRAWFORD WILLIAMSON was a great all-round naturalist of the Victorian period whose work as a Zoologist gained him high distinction long before his attention became seriously concentrated upon his famous studies into the structure of the fossil plants of the Coal Measures. Though these researches were pursued without any marked contemporary encouragement, at any rate until the closing years of his life, the field in which Williamson was so enthusiastic a pioneer has since his time been generally recognised as of the first importance--more especially in its bearing upon the pedigree of the vegetable kingdom. To-day, no branch of Botany has more recruits or is more vigorously pursued in this country than that of Palaeobotany, and so long as the science remains will the memory of Williamson be green.

HARRY MARSHALL WARD belongs to a generation younger than any of the foregoing. His student days coincided with the renaissance of Botany in England in the seventies of the last century, and coming under the influence of Huxley, Thiselton-Dyer, Vines and others, Ward early revealed himself as an ardent investigator. For twenty-five years he devoted his remarkable energies to a series of connected researches bearing broadly on the nutrition of the Fungi and allied organisms with especial reference to the relationships between host and parasite. The notice of his career which appears in this volume is from the pen of Sir William Thiselton-Dyer. Recently printed in the Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, we are indebted to the courtesy of the author and of the Council of the Royal Society for permission to include it here.

* * * * *

In a book like the present, the work of a large number of distinct contributors, it is evident that no continuous or homogeneous treatment of the history and progress of Botany in this country is possible. Judged even as a series of essays or studies of representative men, _The Makers of British Botany_ will not escape criticism, so long as special reference to the work of Priestley, Cavendish and Sénébier finds no place in its pages, not to mention such obvious omissions as Knight, Daubeny and Bentham. These omissions have not been deliberate and it will no doubt be possible to repair them should a second edition of the work be called for. The case of Charles Darwin is different. Apart from the work for which he is most famous, Darwin was a great investigator of the movements of plants and of the biology of flowers. As this aspect of Darwin's work has received adequate treatment in the recent centenary volume published by the Cambridge University Press[1], it has not seemed necessary on the present occasion to traverse the ground again.

* * * * *

The reader of _The Makers of British Botany_ will judge, and we think rightly, that Botany has had its ups and downs in this country. At the end of the seventeenth century England was contributing her full share to the foundation and advancement of the subject. In the field of Systematic Botany Ray, at any rate, left his permanent influence as a taxonomist, whilst in Plant Anatomy, the offspring of the newly invented microscope, Grew divided the honours with his brilliant contemporary Malpighi. A few years later Stephen Hales was carrying out the famous experiments which are embodied in his _Vegetable Staticks_, entitling him to be justly regarded as the Father of plant physiology. Notwithstanding so admirable a beginning, the next century was almost a blank. The essay on John Hill serves to illustrate the sterility of this period. The dominant influence in Botany in the eighteenth century was that of Linnaeus, whose genius as a taxonomist gave the most wonderful impulse to the study of Botany that it has ever received. Shorn of its accumulated dead-weight of nomenclature, the simplified Botany of Linnaeus took deep root in this country and here for a century it reigned supreme as a source of inspiration. Fed on unlimited collections of plants from all parts of a growing Empire, it is hardly surprising that a great British school of Systematic Botany led by Robert Brown, the Hookers, Lindley and Bentham should have arisen. What is remarkable is the almost exclusive persistence of this branch of Botany for more than a generation after the establishment and recognition of other departments on the continent of Europe. Whilst we made a shrine for the Linnaean collections, so far as we were concerned Grew and Hales might never have lived; even the rational and scientific morphology created by Hofmeister in the forties of last century failed to deflect us from our course!

It was only in the later seventies that the New Botany came to England, whither it was imported from Germany. For a while, as was to be expected, our Universities were kept busy in training students in the modern work and in the conduct of investigations in the fields thus opened. With acclimatisation certain distinctive branches which may be regarded as characteristic have come to the front. These include more especially the study of anatomy in its phylogenetic aspects with which is closely linked that of the palaeozoic fossils, so richly represented in some of our coal-fields as to constitute a virtual monopoly. The present wide-spread revival of interest in palaeobotany is in no small measure attributable to Williamson, who, in spite of discouragement, kept the subject alive till the modern movement was firmly enough established to take up his work. Another productive field has been that of the nuclear cytology of both higher and lower plants, whilst physiology, especially on the chemical side, has attained pre-eminence. On present indications it is to be expected that in the near future physiology will receive much more attention than hitherto, partly as an inevitable reaction from the field of pure structure, and partly because of its fundamental importance in relation to agriculture. Nor is this the only branch that should be greatly stimulated by the forward movement in Agriculture that is now just beginning to be felt. The science of plant breeding, too long neglected by the countrymen of Darwin, has been pursued with much success for a decade, and has already reached the "producing stage" in respect of new and improved races of agricultural plants.

The youngest branch of Botany is Ecology or the study of vegetation in relation to habitat--particularly soil in its widest sense. This department deals with the recognition and distribution of the different types of plant community in relation to topography and the factors--chemical, physical and biologic--which determine this distribution. Ecology has the great merit of taking its followers into the field, where they are confronted with a wide range of problems not hitherto regarded as strictly within the province of the botanist. At the same time it exacts the most critical acquaintance with the minutiae of the taxonomist, so that a new sphere of usefulness is opened to the systematist. Ecology should have a great part to play in helping to break down the frontiers which have too long tended to separate Botany from the other sciences, and the maintenance of which is not in the true interests of the subject.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] _Darwin and Modern Science_.

ROBERT MORISON AND JOHN RAY

1620-1683 1627-1705

BY SYDNEY HOWARD VINES

Early systems of classification--Theophrastus--the
Herbalists--Cesalpino's _De Plantis_--Caspar Bauhin's _Pinax
Theatri Botanici_--MORISON--narrative--Botany at Oxford--the
garden established--Jacob Bobart the elder--Morison's _Historia
Plantarum_--completion by the younger Bobart--personal
characteristics--Morison's works--the _Praeludia_--the
_Hallucinationes_--the _Dialogus_--principles of method in his
_Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova_--posthumous publication
of System--indebtedness to Cesalpino--Linnaeus' estimate of
Morison--RAY--narrative--first attempt at a System--quarrel
with Morison--the _Methodus Nova_--Dicotyledones and
Monocotyledones--Linnaeus' criticisms--later Systems--the French
school--Morison and Ray compared.

The literature of Botany can be traced back to a quite respectable antiquity, to the period of Aristotle (B.C. 384-322) who seems to have been the first to write of plants from the truly botanical point of view. Unfortunately, his special treatise on plants--θεωρία περὶ φυτῶν [Greek: theôria peri phytôn]--is lost; and although there are many botanical passages scattered throughout his other writings (which have been collected by Wimmer, _Phytologiae Aristotelicae Fragmenta_, 1836), yet none of them gives any indication of what his ideas of classification may have been. An echo of them is perhaps to be found in the works of his favourite pupil, Theophrastus Eresius (B.C. 371-286), who among all his fellows was the most successful in pursuing the botanical studies that they had begun under the guidance of the master. Theophrastus left behind him two important, though incomplete, treatises on plants, the oldest that have survived: the more familiar Latin titles of which are _De Historia Plantarum_ and _De Causis Plantarum_. The latter is essentially physiological, touching upon agriculture to a certain extent: the former is mainly morphological, structural, descriptive, and it is here that the first attempt at a classification of plants is to be found. In writing the _Historia_, Theophrastus was endeavouring, as a Greek philosopher rather than as a botanist, to "give account of" plants; and in order to do so he found it necessary to arrange them in some kind of order. Seizing upon obvious external features, he distinguished (_Lib._ I. _cap_. 5) and defined Tree, Shrub, Undershrub and Herb, giving examples; adding, however, that the definitions are to be accepted and understood as typical and general, "for some may seem perhaps to deviate" from them. Simple as was this mode of arrangement, Theophrastus further simplified it in the course of his work, by treating trees and shrubs as one group, and undershrubs and herbs as the other.

_Quæ Morisone viro potuit contingere major
Gloria, Pæonium quam superasse genus?

Ipse tibi palmam Phœbus concedit Apollo,
Laureaque est capiti quælibit herba tuo._

_Archibaldi Pitcairne M.D_.]

It may seem, at first sight, singular that a lecture purporting to discuss the state of systematic botany in England during the 17th century should begin with a reference to the botany of the Greeks. The explanation is that the elementary classification introduced by Theophrastus persisted throughout the 17th century; the use of the groups Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs came to an end only in the 18th century, with the advent of Linnaeus. It seems almost incredible, but it is a fact, that the lapse of the nearly 2000 years that separated Theophrastus from Morison marked no material advance in the science of classification. Botanical works, when they were something more than commentaries on Theophrastus or Dioscorides, took cognizance of little else than the properties, medicinal or otherwise, of plants, and their economic uses.

A growing perception of the essential resemblances observable among plants can be traced, however, in the later Herbals, as they became less medical and economic and more definitely botanical. Thus, in the well-known work of Leonhard Fuchs (Fuchsius), _De Historia Stirpium Commentarii_, 1542, the plants are described in alphabetical order, without any reference to their mutual relation. But in Kyber's edition of Jerome Bock's (Tragus) _De Stirpium Nomenclatura, etc._, _Commentariorum Libri Tres_, published in 1552 (with a preface by Conrad Gesner), there is an attempt at a grouping of plants, though no principles are enunciated and no names are given to the groups, which resulted in the bringing together of labiate, leguminous, gramineous and umbelliferous herbs. The _Cruydtboeck_ of Rembert Dodoens (Dodonaeus), 1554, marks much the same stage of progress, whereas the _Nova Stirpium Adversaria_ of Pierre Pena and Matthias de l'Obel (Lobelius), issued in 1570, is a distinct step in advance. Here some idea is incidentally given of the principles that have been followed in the arrangement of the plants, but still no name is attached, as a rule, to the resulting groups. The work begins with an account of the herbaceous plants which, in modern terminology, are monocotyledonous: and at the end of the section (p. 65) de l'Obel thus explains what he has done:--"_Hactenus comparendo quot potuimus plantarum genera, quarum effigies et naturae ordinis consequutione ita sibi mutuo haererent, ut et facillime noscerentur et memoriae mandarentur, a Gramineis, Segetibus, Harundinibus, ad Acoros, Irides, Cyperos, hincque Asphodelos bulborum tuniceorum Caepaceorumve naturam praetervecti sumus._" Cruciferous, caryophyllaceous, labiate and umbelliferous herbs are also segregated to some extent in the course of the work: and the leguminous herbs are brought together into a definite group, "_Alterum Frugum genus nempe graminis Trifolii et Leguminum_," which is really the origin of the modern N. O. Leguminosae: though a few altogether foreign species, such as species of _Oxalis_, _Anemone Hepatica_, _Jasminum fruticans_ L., and species of _Thalictrum_, are included among the trifoliate forms, and _Dictamnus Fraxinella_ among the "Leguminosa." The _Stirpium Historiae Pemptades Sex sive Libri XXX_ of Dodoens, published in 1583, shows considerable progress in classification as compared with his _Cruydtboeck_ of 1554, more particularly in the recognition, apparently for the first time, of umbelliferous plants as a distinct group in a chapter headed _De Umbelliferis Herbis_.

Possibly these attempts to introduce some sort of system into Botany may have been inspired by the teachings of Conrad Gesner, that universal genius, who lived about this time (1516-1565). Though but fragments of his botanical writings have survived, it is clear from the much-quoted passage in a letter of his dated Nov. 26, 1565 (_Epistolae Medicae_, 1577, p. 113) that he too was seeking for the basis of a natural system of classification and that he thought he had found it in the flower and the fruit:--"_Ex his enim notis_ (_a fructu_, _semine_ and _flore_) _potius quam foliis, stirpium naturae et cognationes apparent_."

Evidently at this period classification was in the air, and at length it began to precipitate and to crystallise in the work of Andrea Cesalpino (Caesalpinus: 1519-1603), Professor in the University of Pisa, whose _De Plantis Libri XVI_, published in 1583, is one of the most important landmarks in the history of systematic Botany. Here for the first time a system is propounded which is based definitely upon morphological observation. Cesalpino turns to the "fructification," that is the flower and the fruit, for his distinguishing characters. "_Enitamur igitur_," he says (Lib. I. _cap._ xiv.), "_ex propriis quae fructificationis gratia data sunt, plantarum genera investigare_"; and he goes on to point out that the observable differences here depend on number, position and form of the parts:--"_ad organorum constitutionem tria maxime faciant, scilicet, partium numerus, situs et figura_." These principles he illustrates as follows:--the flower being the outermost covering of the fruit, a single flower may cover a single seed, as in the Almond: or a single seed-receptacle as in the Rose: or two seeds, as in the Umbelliferae: or two seed-receptacles, as in the Cress: or three seeds, as in the genus _Tithymalus_ (_Euphorbia_); or three receptacles, as in the Bulbaceous plants (petaloid Monocotyledons): or four seeds, as in _Marrubium_: or four receptacles, as in _Euonymus_: or many seeds, as in the Cichoriaceae: or many receptacles, as in the Coniferae. The feature of the relative position of the parts which he especially emphasizes is whether the flower is inserted upon the top of the fruit (_i.e._ is epigynous): or is inserted lower around the fruit (hypogynous or perigynous). Moreover, the form of the seed, of the seed-receptacle, and of the flower, is to be taken into account.

The practical application of these principles led to a classification of plants which, though of course imperfect, was at least a good beginning. Following Theophrastus, Cesalpino divided plants into two main groups, (1) Trees and Shrubs, (2) Undershrubs and Herbs: each of these groups was then subdivided according to the nature of the fruit and of the flower. It will be observed that Cesalpino, as was customary at that time, designated as "seeds" all indehiscent one-seeded fruits, such as nuts and the varieties of achene. The following abstract will suffice to give an adequate idea of the results obtained. The author's own words are given as nearly as possible.

ARBOREAE: =Seminibus saepius solitariis=:

Glandiferae: _e.g._ _Quercus_.
Vasculiferae: _Fagus_, _Castanea_.
Nuciferae: _Juglans_, _Carpinus_, _Corylus_, _Ulmus_, _Tilia_,
_Acer_, &c.
Pericarpio tectae; flore in sede fructus: _Prunus_, &c.
flore in apice fructus: _Viburnum_, _Aesculus_, &c.

=Seminibus pluribus=:

Flore carentes: _Ficus_.
Flos in summo fructus: _Morus_, _Sambucus_, _Hedera_, _Rosa_, &c.
Flos in sede fructus: _Vitis_, _Arbutus_, _Cornus_, &c.
Sedes seminis multiplex tecta communi corpore: _Pyrus_, _Citrus_.
" " in siliquam producta: leguminous plants.
" " bipartita: _Nerium_, _Syringa_, _Populus_, _Betula_,
_Salix_, &c.
" " tripartita: _Buxus_, _Myrtus_.
" " quadripartita: _Vitex_, _Euonymus_.
" " tecta proprio corpore: coniferous plants.

HERBACEAE: =Solitariis Seminibus=:

Semina nuda, papposa: _Valeriana_.
Semina pericarpio obducta: _Daphne_, _Jasminum_.
Flos in summo fructus: _Osyris_, _Valerianella_.
Flos in sede fructus, semen calyce exceptum: _Urtica_, Chenopodiaceae,
Polygonaceae, Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Typhaceae.

=Solitariis Pericarpiis=:

Flos exterius situs (Pomum): Cucurbitaceae.
Flos inferius situs (Bacca): Solanaceae, _Ruscus_, _Arum_,
_Actaea_, &c.

=Solitariis Vasculis=:

Legumina: leguminous herbs.
Capsulae: Caryophyllaceae, Primulaceae, Gentianaceae, &c.

=Binis Seminibus=: (Genus Ferulaceum) Umbelliferae.

=Binis Conceptaculis=:

Semina solitaria in singulis alveolis: Rubiaceae.
" plura, flore continuo: Scrophulariaceae, &c.
" " flore in foliola quaterna diviso: Cruciferae.

=Triplici Principio, non-Bulbosae=:

Semina nuda: _Thalictrum_.
" solitaria in tribus alveolis: Euphorbiaceae.
" plura in tribus alveolis: Convolvulaceae, Campanulaceae, &c.

=Triplici Principio, Bulbosae=:

Flos inferius sedet: bulbous Liliaceae.
Flos in summo fructus: Amaryllidaceae.
Bulbaceis ascribi desiderant: other Liliaceae, Iridaceae, Orchidaceae.

=Quaternis Seminibus=: Boraginaceae, Labiatae.

=Pluribus Seminibus in communi sede=: most Compositae.

Lactescentes: Cichorieae.
Acanaceae: Cynareae, _Dipsacus_, _Eryngium_, &c.

=Pluribus Seminibus Flore communi=:

Semina plene nuda: acheniferous Ranunculaceae and Rosaceae, &c.
Aut conjunctis receptaculis: _e.g._ _Aristolochia_, _Nymphaea_,
_Papaver_, _Cistus_.
Aut disjunctis receptaculis: _e.g._ _Sedum_, _Veratrum_, _Helleborus_,
_Delphinium_, _Dictamnus_.

=Flore fructuque carentes=: Cryptogams.

In spite of its inherent imperfections and of errors of observation, the method succeeded in bringing together a considerable number of the plants dealt with, into groups which are still regarded as natural. For instance, among the trees and shrubs, the leguminous genera, and the coniferous genera, respectively, are so brought together: and among herbs, the leguminous, umbelliferous, cruciferous and composite genera. Moreover, though many of Cesalpino's sections consist of what seems to be a heterogeneous assemblage of plants, yet they include groups of closely allied genera, representing several of the natural orders of more modern times, which his method was incapable of distinguishing. With all its shortcomings, the method produced a classification of plants which has proved to have been natural in no slight degree.

The very numerous botanical works which were published in the century after the appearance of Cesalpino's _De Plantis_ afford evidence that his system of classification did not meet with an enthusiastic reception. Though his plant-names were generally quoted, his arrangement was entirely ignored: in fact the very idea of classification seems to have gradually faded out of the minds of botanists, whose attention was more and more engrossed with the description of the new species that the rapid extension of geographical discovery was bringing to light. This condition of the science is well illustrated by the most authoritative systematic work that the 17th century produced, the great _Pinax Theatri Botanici_ (1623) of Caspar Bauhin (1560-1624), a work which contains about six thousand plant-names, and was the product of forty years' labour. It might be expected that in such a work, special attention would have been paid to classification, that at least the best available system would have been used: as a matter of fact, the arrangement adopted is far inferior to that of Cesalpino and may be described as simply haphazard for the most part. The general lines of it are indicated by the following enumeration of the contents of the twelve Books of which the work consists; the modern equivalents of his plant-names being given.

SUMMARY OF THE ARRANGEMENT ADOPTED IN BAUHIN'S _Pinax_.

Liber I. Gramineae, Juncaceae, Cyperaceae, Typhaceae, _Ephedra_,
_Equisetum_, _Hippuris_, _Asphodelus_, some Iridaceae, and
Zingiberaceae.

Liber II. De Bulbosis; bulbous Monocotyledons, including Orchids
with Orobanche, _Monotropa_, and _Lathraea_.

Liber III. Olera et Oleracea; most Cruciferae, Polygonaceae, and
Chenopodiaceae, with some of the Compositae.

Liber IV. Other Compositae; _Delphinium_, _Fumaria_; the
Umbelliferae (so named); _Valeriana_.

Liber V. Some Solanaceae, Papaveraceae, and Ranunculaceae;
_Gentiana_, _Plantago_, _Pyrola_, _Statice_, _Sarracenia_,
_Nymphaea_, _Trapa_, _Sagittaria_, _Arum_, _Asarum_, and some
Compositae.

Liber VI. _Viola_; _Cheiranthus_, _Matthiola_, _Alyssum_,
_Hesperis_; some Caryophyllaceae; _Polygala_, _Specularia_,
_Glaux_, _Linum_, _Cuscuta_, most Labiatae and Scrophulariaceae;
_Primula_, &c.

Liber VII. _Lysimachia_, _Epilobium_, _Oenothera_, _Lythrum_, some
more Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, and Caryophyllaceae; Boraginaceae;
some Compositae; _Alisma_; _Scabiosa_; _Hypericum_; Crassulaceae;
_Aloe_; _Euphorbia_.

Liber VIII. Various climbing plants; _Convolvulus_, _Smilax_,
_Humulus_, _Vitis_; _Clematis_, _Lonicera_, _Hedera_; and
Cucurbitaceae: also Apocynaceae, Asclepiadaceae, some Liliaceae,
Malvaceae, Rosaceae, Leguminosae, with other genera scattered among
them, as _Aristolochia_, _Dentaria_, _Paeonia_, _Geranium_.

Liber IX. Rubiaceae; _Ruta_, _Thalictrum_; the remainder of the
Leguminosae.

Liber X. Cryptogams in general: with a few scattered Phanerogams
such as _Drosera_, _Oxalis sensitiva_, L. (_Herba viva foliis
polypodii_); _Mimosa pudica_ (_Herba Mimosa foliis Foenugraeci
sylvestris_); _Lemna_; and the remaining Compositae, the Thistles,
with _Eryngium_, _Dipsacus_, and _Acanthus_.

Liber XI. Trees and Shrubs: Leguminous and Rosaceous; also _Rhus_,
_Laurus_, _Fraxinus_, _Juglans_, _Castanea_, _Fagus_, _Quercus_,
_Corylus_, _Tilia_, _Ulmus_, _Betula_, _Alnus_, _Populus_, _Acer_,
_Platanus_, _Ricinus_.

Liber XII. _Mespilus_, _Crataegus_, _Berberis_, _Ribes_,
_Sambucus_, _Ficus_, _Opuntia_, _Morus_, _Arbutus_, _Laurus_,
_Daphne_, _Cistus_, _Myrtus_, _Vaccinium_, _Buxus_, _Olea_,
_Salix_, _Ligustrum_, _Phillyrea_, _Rhamnus_, _Rubus Rosa_,
_Tamarix_, _Erica_, Coniferous plants, _Palma_.

There was but one author, during this period, who made any material contribution to the science of classification, and that was Joachim Jung of Hamburg (1587-1657). Jung is best known by his _Isagoge Phytoscopica_ (1678, ed. Vaget), the most philosophic and scientific treatise on plants that had appeared since the time of Aristotle, which is the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of plant-morphology and descriptive botany has since been erected. But it was in his _De Plantis Doxoscopiae Physicae Minores_ (1662, ed. Fogel) that he expressed his views on systematic Botany. He did not propound a system of his own, but he sought to arrive at the principles upon which a classification should be based, with the logical result that he rejected the time-honoured Theophrastian division of plants into Trees and Herbs. Though Jung failed to produce any immediate impression upon the Botany of his time, he powerfully influenced the great developments which took place in the eighteenth century. It so happened that Ray, as he mentions in his _Index Plantarum Agri Cantabrigiensis_ (1660), had obtained through Samuel Hartlib a MS. of the whole or part of Jung's _Isagoge_, which seems to have impressed him so much that he included many of Jung's morphological definitions in the glossary appended to the _Index_; and he subsequently embodied the _Isagoge_ in the first volume of his _Historia Plantarum_ (1686). It was from Ray's _Historia_ that Linnaeus learned the morphological principles and terminology of Jung which were the basis of his own work in descriptive Botany, and rendered possible the elaboration of his system of classification. But, in spite of Jung, the venerable division of plants into Trees and Herbs continued to hold its own for a time. As will be seen, it was still adhered to by Morison and by Ray, even after it had been shown to be quite untenable by Rivinus (_Introductio Generalis in Rem Herbariam_) in 1690, and did not finally disappear until the time of Linnaeus.

It was just when systematic Botany had fallen back to its lowest level that Morison appeared upon the scene. He had been born at Aberdeen in 1620, and had there graduated Master of Arts with distinction by the time he was eighteen years old. His further studies in the natural sciences were interrupted by the Civil War, in which he took part on the Royalist side, being severely wounded in the battle of the Brig of Dee (1644). He fled to France, and there resumed his preparation for a scientific career with such success that he obtained, in 1648, the degree of Doctor of Medicine at the University of Angers. From that time onwards he devoted himself entirely to the study of Botany, which he pursued in Paris under the guidance of Vespasian Robin, Botanist to the King of France. In 1650 Morison was appointed by the Duke of Orleans, on Robin's recommendation, to take charge of the royal garden at Blois, a post which he held for ten years. The Duke of Orleans, shortly before his death early in 1660, had occasion to present Morison to his nephew King Charles II who was about to return to his kingdom. Soon after the Restoration, the King summoned Morison to London; and in spite of tempting offers made to induce him to remain in France, Morison obeyed the summons and was rewarded with the title of King's Physician and Professor of Botany with a stipend of two hundred pounds a year. During his tenure of these offices Morison found time to complete his first botanical work, the _Praeludia Botanica_, which was published in 1669; the same year in which he was appointed Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford.

A few words may be devoted, at this point, to the rise and progress of Botany in that University. In the year 1621, Lord Danvers (afterwards Earl of Danby), thinking "that his money could not be better laid out than to begin and finish a place whereby learning, especially the Faculty of Medicine, might be improved," decided to endow the University with a Physic Garden, such as was already possessed by various Universities on the Continent. With this object, he gave a sum of £250 to enable the University to purchase the lease of a plot of ground, about five acres in extent, situated "without the East Gate of Oxford, near the river Cherwell." A great deal of labour had to be expended upon the land after it had been secured: it was so low-lying that, as Anthony Wood says, "much soil was conveyed thither for the raising of the ground to prevent the overflowing of the waters" at the expense of Lord Danvers, who also caused to be built what Baskerville describes as "a most stately wall of hewen stone 14 foot high with 3 very considerable Gates thereto, one whereof was to the cost of at least five hundred pounds." The work proceeded but slowly, in consequence of the troublous times through which the country was passing, so that it was not completed until 1632. Even then the actual installation of the garden was delayed. About 1637 the Earl of Danby seems to have arranged with the well-known John Tradescant to act as gardener, but there is no evidence that Tradescant ever discharged the duties of the post: moreover, he died in the following year. Very shortly after this, though the exact date is not known, the Earl appointed Jacob Bobart to take charge of the Garden. Jacob Bobart was a German, born at Brunswick about the year 1599. He was an excellent gardener: under his care the garden flourished so well that the catalogue which was published in 1648 anonymously, though doubtless drawn up by Bobart, enumerated no less than 1600 species of plants in cultivation.

It had been the intention of Lord Danby to provide the University not only with a Physic Garden and a Gardener, but also with a Professor of Botany. For this purpose he bequeathed certain revenues: "but so it was that the times being unsettled, and the revenues falling short, nothing was done in order to the settling of a Professor till 1669." When the establishment of the Professorship had become possible, the University proceeded to elect Morison the first Professor of Botany, being influenced by the reputation which his recently published _Praeludia Botanica_ had secured for him. Thus, after the lapse of nearly half a century, was Lord Danby's design completely realised.

Morison's chief occupation at Oxford was the preparation of his long promised _magnum opus_, the _Historia Plantarum Universalis Oxoniensis_. It was planned on a most extensive scale, and proved to be a laborious and costly undertaking. Morison impoverished himself in the preparation even of the one volume of it that appeared in his lifetime, though his many friends provided the cost of the 126 plates of figures with which it is illustrated, and the University advanced considerable sums of money. The work was to have been issued in three parts: the first part was to be devoted to Trees and Shrubs, and the other two parts to the Herbs. The volume published by Morison in 1680, and described as _Pars Secunda_, deals with only five out of the fifteen sections into which he classified herbaceous plants, although it extends to more than 600 folio pages. In the preface he gives as his reason for beginning with the Herbs rather than with the Trees and Shrubs, that he wished to accomplish first the most difficult part of his task lest, in the event of his death before the completion of the _Historia_, it should fall into the hands of incompetent persons. He did not live to finish his great undertaking. In November, 1683, he was in London on business connected with it: as he was crossing the Strand near Charing Cross, he was knocked down by a coach, and was so severely injured that he died on the following day. He was buried in the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields.

His unfinished work did not, as he feared, fall into incompetent hands. It was entrusted by the University to Jacob Bobart the younger, who on the death of his father in 1679, had succeeded him as Keeper of the Physic Garden, and who also succeeded Morison as _Horti Praefectus_, but not as _Professor Botanices_; the Professorship remained in abeyance for nearly forty years. After much difficulty and delay, a second and final instalment of the _Historia_, the _Pars Tertia_, dealing with the remaining ten sections of herbaceous plants, was published in 1699, as a folio of 657 pages with 168 plates. The material at Bobart's disposal was fairly abundant, consisting of Morison's MS. of four more of his sections of Herbs, with notes upon the remaining six sections. But even so, the task of completion was a laborious one, for it involved the incorporation of references to the very many descriptions of new plants that had been published since Morison's death: it has been generally admitted that Bobart discharged it with commendable skill.

Great Gate of the Physic Garden Oxford: the elder Bobart in the foreground]

The _Pars Prima_, that was to have been devoted to Trees and Shrubs, was never written. All that exists to represent it, is a stout MS. volume in the Library at the Botanic Garden, Oxford, apparently in Bobart's hand-writing, containing a classification and an enumeration of the species of trees and shrubs, which may possibly have been written with a view to publication.

A most interesting feature of Bobart's _Pars Tertia_ is the _Vita Roberti Morisoni M.D._ with which the book opens, written by one of Morison's intimate friends, Dr Archibald Pitcairn. It is the source of all the available information regarding Morison up to the time of his coming to Oxford; after that time much may be gathered concerning him from the records of the University. It is also a loyal defence of Morison and his system of classification against the criticisms to which, even then, he had been subjected. It concludes with a personal account of Morison, in which he is described as being "vigorous in body, having a mind trained to every kind of study, of ingenuous manners, calling a spade a spade, eager for true knowledge, a despiser of filthy lucre, considering the public advantage rather than his private gain." A portrait of him, here reproduced, forms the frontispiece to the volume.

Such was the life of the man whose botanical works are now to be considered: works that are not nearly so numerous as they are considerable, as will be seen from the following enumeration and brief description of them.

_Praeludia Botanica_, 1669: a small 8vo volume of about 500 pages, which consists of the following parts:

(pp. 1-347): _Hortus Regius Blesensis Auctus._

(pp. 351-459): _Hallucinationes Caspari Bauhini in Pinace, item
Animadversiones in tres Tomos Universalis Historiae Johannis
Bauhini_.

(pp. 463-499): _Dialogus inter Socium Collegii Regii Gresham dicti
et Botanographum Regium_.

_Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova, per Tabulas Cognationis et Affinitatis, ex Libro Naturae observata et detecta_, 1672.

_Plantarum Historiae Universalis Oxoniensis Pars Secunda, seu Herbarum Distributio Nova per Tabulas Cognationis et Affinitatis ex Libro Naturae observata et detecta_, 1680.

The three distinct treatises of which the _Praeludia Botanica_ consists were written probably at different times, though published simultaneously in 1669. The first of them is an alphabetical catalogue, comprising about 2600 species, of the plants in the Royal garden at Blois when under Morison's care: 260 of the species are marked as new, and are fully described in an appendix. But the chief interest of the _Hortus Regius Blesensis Auctus_ lies in the dedication to King Charles II. Morison here narrates how, whilst at Blois, he had framed a system of classification; how the King's Uncle, the Duke of Orleans, had promised to undertake the publication of a book to illustrate the system on an adequate scale, and how the sudden death of the Duke in 1660 had destroyed all such hopes; and he ends by appealing to the King to give him the patronage that he so much needed. "_Quod si annuere hoc mihi digneris_," he wrote, "_polliceor Britanniam vestram cum methodo exactissima (quae est naturae ipsius) imposterum, in re Botanica gloriari posse, quemadmodum Italia, Gallia, Germania, superiori saeculo, sine methodo, in Scientia Botanica gloriatae sunt._" But the King does not appear to have been moved by this dazzling promise. Morison evidently did not suffer from any lack of confidence in himself or in his method, of which he speaks on a previous page of the dedication, as "_methodus nova a natura data, a me solummodo (citra jactantiam) observata: a nullo nisi meipso in hunc usque diem detecta, quamvis mundi incunabilis sit coeva_," language which can hardly be described as modest. And yet, curiously enough, Morison gives not the slightest indication of the principles of this altogether new and original method of classification.

The second treatise, the _Hallucinationes_, is a searching and acute criticism of the published works of the brothers Bauhin: of the _Pinax_ of Caspar, and of the _Historia_ of John. Though he acknowledges in the preface the great value of their botanical labours, Morison did not fail to set out in detail the mistakes that they had made in both classification and nomenclature, and to make corrections which were, for the most part, justified. Probably it was the critical study of the works of the Bauhins that led Morison to frame a system of classification of his own.

The third and last treatise is the _Dialogus_: a dialogue between himself, as _Botanographus Regius_, King's Botanist, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, on the theme of classification. Here again Morison asserts the superiority of his own method: "_Methodum me observasse fateor: estque omnium quae unquam adhuc fuerunt exhibitae, praestantissima et certissima quippe a natura data_." But he still fails to give any definite account of it: all that he says amounts merely to this, that the "_nota generica_" is not to be sought in the properties of a plant, nor in the shape of its leaves, as had been suggested by earlier writers, but in the fructification, that is, in the flower and fruit (_essentiam plantarum desumendam ... a florum forma at seminum conformatione_).

The mention of a system of classification based on the form of the leaf evoked from _Botanographus_ a pointed allusion to a book recently published by a Fellow of the Royal Society in which such a classification had been used, with the following severe comment: "_Ego tantum confusum Chaos: illic, de plantis legi, nec quicquam didici, ut monstrabo tibi et lapsus et confusionem, alias_." The book so criticised was the encyclopaedic work edited by Dr John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, and published by the Royal Society in 1668, entitled, "_An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language_," to which John Ray had contributed the botanical article '_Tables of Plants_.' This criticism was the beginning of the unfriendly relations between Morison and Ray, of which some further account will be given subsequently.

Another point of interest in the _Dialogus_ is the definite assertion (p. 488) that Ferns are 'perfect' plants, having flower and seed (_quia habent flores, qui fugiunt quasi obtutum, et semina quasi pulvisculum in dorso alarum_), an assertion which was repeated with even greater emphasis in Morison's preface to his edition of Boccone's _Icones at Descriptiones Rariorum Plantarum_ etc. (Oxon. 1674), in opposition to the views of earlier writers, Cesalpino in particular. Cesalpino had, it is true, said of the group in which he had placed the Ferns and other Cryptogams, "_quod nullum semen molitur_" (_De Plantis_, p. 591): but he had added, in the same paragraph,--"_ferunt enim in folio quid, quod vicem seminis gerit, ut Filix et quae illi affinia sunt_." It is a question if Morison was much nearer the truth than Cesalpino.

It is in the preface of his _Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova_ (1672) that Morison first gave a definite statement of the principles of his method, in the following terms: "_Cumque methodus sit omnis doctrinae anima: idcirco nos tam in hac umbelliferarum dispositione, quam in universali omnium stirpium digestione, quam pollicemur, notas genericas et essentiales a seminibus eorumque similitudine petitas, per tabulas cognationis et affinitatis disponentes stirpes exhibebimus. Differentias autem specificas a partibus ignobilioribus, scilicet radice, foliis et caulibus, odore, sapore, colore desumptas adscribemus, singulis generibus singulas accersendo species: ita species diversa facie cognoscibiles, sub generibus intermediis: genera intermedia sub supremis, notis suis essentialibus et semper eodem modo sese habentibus distincta militabunt. Hic est ordo a natura ipsa stirpibus ab initio datus, a me primo jam observatus._"

It is not necessary to discuss in detail the merits of Morison's work on the Umbelliferae. It will suffice to say that it was published as a specimen of the great Historia that he had in preparation--_trigesimam operis quod intendimus partem_--so that the learned world might have some idea of what they were to expect from the completed work "_quemadmodum aiunt ex ungue leonem_"; and further, that it was the first monograph of a definite group of plants, and is remarkable for the sense of relationship between the genera that inspires it. The Umbelliferae constituted _Sectio IX_ among the fifteen sections in which Morison distributed herbaceous plants.

At length, in 1680, appeared the _Pars Secunda_ of the _Plantarum Historia Universalis Oxoniensis_ in which work Morison's long-expected method of classification was to be exhibited and justified. However in this respect it proved to be disappointing: partly because it was so limited in its scope, dealing with but five of his fifteen _Sectiones_ of herbaceous plants: and partly because it did not contain any complete outline of his system. It is most singular that, although he wrote so much, Morison should have died without having published any more definite information concerning his system of classification than what has been here cited.

Morison's influence did not, however, cease with his death; his tradition was maintained by the publication in 1699 of the _Pars Tertia_ of the _Historia_, under the editorship of Bobart. This volume threw some welcome light upon Morison's system, inasmuch as it completed the description of the herbaceous plants, and gave a clear statement, in the form of a _Botanologiae Summarium_, of the classification resulting from the application of Morison's principles to these plants. But, even so, the revelation of the system still remained incomplete, in the absence of any account of the trees and shrubs.

It was not till nearly forty years after Morison's death, not until Bobart too was dead, that a full statement of Morison's method was published. In 1720 there appeared at Oxford a small tract of but twelve pages, the _Historiae Naturalis Sciagraphia_, containing an account of a complete system of classification, which agrees in all essentials, so far as herbaceous plants are concerned with that adopted by Morison and by Bobart in their respective volumes of the _Historia_: and, as regards trees and shrubs, with that in the MS. volume by Bobart which has been already mentioned. The tract is anonymous, but the matter that it contains is Bobart's work, whether it was written by himself or by some one who had access to his papers. This classification may be accepted as being essentially that of Morison, though somewhat modified by Bobart, who had undoubtedly been influenced by Ray's systematic writings which had appeared meanwhile. It is of such interest that it may be reproduced here, somewhat compressed, with an indication of the modern equivalents of the groups.

I. ARBORES.

Coniferae semper virentes: most coniferous genera.
" foliis deciduis: _Larix_, _Alnus_, _Betula_.
Glandiferae: _Quercus_.
Nuciferae: _Juglans_, _Fagus_, _Corylus_, _Laurus_, &c.
Pruniferae: _Prunus_, _Olea_, &c.
Pomiferae: _Pyrus_, _Citrus_, _Punica_, _Ficus_, &c.
Bacciferae: _Taxus_, _Juniperus_, _Morus_, _Arbutus_, _Sorbus_, &c.
Siliquosae: _Cercis_, and other leguminous trees.
Fructu membranaceo: _Acer_, _Carpinus_, _Tilia_, _Fraxinus_, Ulmus.
Lanigerae non Juliferae: _Platanus_, _Gossypium_.
Juliferae et Lanigerae: _Populus_, _Salix_.
Sui generis Arbor: _Palma_.

II. FRUTICES.

Nuciferi: _Staphylea_.
Pruniferi: _Cornus_.
Bacciferi, foliis deciduis: _Viburnum_, _Rhus_, _Rosa_, _Ribes_, &c.
" semper virentes: _Ruscus_, _Phillyrea_, _Myrtus_,
_Buxus_, &c.
Leguminosi: _Genista_, _Cytisus_, _Colutea_.
Binis Loculamentis: _Justicia_, _Syringa_.
Capsulis tetragonis: _Philadelphus_, _Tetragonia_.
" pentagonis: _Cistus_.
Multicapsulares: _Spiraea_, _Erica_.
Lanigeri: _Salix_, _Tamarix_, _Nerium_.

III. SUFFRUTICES.

Scandentes capreolis: _Vitis_, _Bignonia_, _Smilax_.
" viticulis: _Lonicera_, _Jasminum_, _Solanum_, &c.
" radiculis: _Hedera_.

IV. HERBAE.

Sectio i. =Scandentes=: Bacciferae: _Bryonia_, _Tamus_, &c.
Pomiferae: most Cucurbitaceae.
Campanulatae: Convolvulaceae.

Sectio ii. =Leguminosae, Papilionaceae siliquis bivalvibus=:
Leguminous herbs.

Sectio iii. =Siliquosae Tetrapetalae Bicapsulares=: Cruciferae
(with _Veronica_ and _Polygala_).
hisce adjiciuntur quaedam: _Chelidonium_, _Fumaria_,
_Epilobium_, &c.

Sectio iv. =Hexapetalae Tricapsulares=:
Radicibus fusiformibus; _Asphodelus_, _Anthericum_.
" tuberosis; _Crocus_, _Gladiolus_, _Iris_.
" bulbosis; _Narcissus_, _Hyacinthus_, _Allium_.
" squamatis; _Lilium_.

Sectio v. =A Numero Capsularum et Petalorum Dictae=:
tricapsulares campanulatae; Campanulaceae.
" pentapetalae; _Hypericum_, _Viola_.
bicapsulares monopetalae; Scrophulariaceae.
quadricapsulares tetrapetalae; Rutaceae.
quinquecapsulares pentapetalae; Geraniaceae.
pentapetalae emollientes; Malvaceae.
" unicapsulares; Caryophyllaceae, Primulaceae.
" seminibus triangularibus; Polygonaceae.
" " nigris splendentibus; Chenopodiaceae.

Sectio vi. =Corymbiferae=: (Compositae in part)
floribus aureis; Artemisia, _Tanacetum_.
" rubris; _Adonis annua_ L.
" albis; _Bellis_, _Anthemis_, _Achillea_, &c.
" ianthinis; _Xeranthemum_, _Scabiosa_, _Globularia_.

Sectio vii. =Flosculis Stellatis=: (the rest of the Compositae)
lactescentes non papposae; _Cichorium_.
" papposae; _Lactuca_, _Sonchus_, _Hieracium_.
papposae non lactescentes; _Senecio_, _Aster_, _Doronicum_, &c.
" capitatae; Cynareae.

Sectio viii. =Culmiferae seu Calamiferae=: Gramineae, Cyperaceae,
Typhaceae.

Sectio ix. =Umbelliferae.=
Hisce adnectuntur Plantae Stellatae; Rubiaceae.

Sectio x. =Tricoccae Purgatrices=: Euphorbiaceae.

Sectio xi. =Monopetalae Tetracarpae Galeatae et Verticillatae=:
Labiatae.
Hisce adjiciuntur Galeatae non verticillatae; _Verbena_, _Euphrasia_.
Et Verticillatae non Galeatae; _Urtica_.
Sequuntur Monopetalae tetracarpae asperifoliae; Boraginaceae.

Sectio xii. =Multisiliquae Polyspermae et Multicapsulares=:
multisilquae; folliculate Ranunculaceae, _Sedum_, &c.
multicapsulares; _Papaver_, _Nymphaea_, _Orchidaceae_,
_Aristolochia_, _Orobanche_, _Pyrola_, &c.

Sectio xiii. =Bacciferae=: some _Solanaceae_, _Sambucus_, _Cornus_,
_Ruscus_, _Arum_, &c.

Sectio xiv. =Capillares Epiphyllospermae=: Filices and
Ophioglossaceae.

Sectio xv. =Heteroclitae seu Anomalae=: consists of
(_a_) Certain Phanerogams: _e.g._ _Piper_, _Acanthus_, _Apocynum_,
_Cuscuta_, _Reseda_, _Sagittaria_, _Alisma_, _Lemna_,
_Drosera_.
(_b_) Pteridophyta other than Ferns: _Equisetum_, _Pilularia_,
_Lycopodium_.
(_c_) Bryophyta, Algae, Fungi.

This then is the Morisonian method,--or at least the nearest available approximation to it--in its entirety. The effect of its application to the Vegetable Kingdom can hardly be accepted as a sufficient justification of the superlatives with which its author had introduced it. Of course it is not reasonable to judge this method, or any other method of the past, by the standard of botanical knowledge as at present existing: it can only be fairly judged from the standpoint of its author. What has to be considered is (1) the soundness of the principles adopted, and (2) the consistency in the application of those principles. The conclusion to be drawn from such a consideration of the foregoing table is that Morison was more fortunate in his theory than in his practice. In spite of his statement that the "_nota generica_" should be taken from the fructification, many of the Sectiones are based upon quite other characters: such are (among the Herbs) the Scandentes, the Corymbiferae, the Culmiferae. Had Morison adhered more closely to his own principles, the results would have been more in accordance with his sanguine anticipations: such a heterogeneous group as _Sectio V_, for instance, would have been impossible. It was, perhaps, on account of its inconsistency that Morison's method never came into general use, although it was adopted enthusiastically by Paul Amman, Professor at Leipzig, in his _Character Plantarum Naturalis_ (ed. 1685); and, with some modifications, by Christopher Knaut, Professor at Halle, in his _Enumeratio Plantarum circa Halam Saxonum sponte provenientium_, 1687, as well as by Paul Hermann, Professor at Leyden, in his _Florae Lugduno-Batavi Flores_ (ed. Zumbach), 1690.