Download PDF
Download PDF Download PDF
yi PREFACE. temperature similar to that of their native climates. None of these arrangements, however, afford any means by which a student, in possession of a plant unknown to him, can discover its situation in the catalogue : and, of course, he is necessitated to have recourse for this purpose to the instruction of a living master, who may not always be at hand. With the view, therefore, of enabling a solitary student to refer an unknown plant to its congeners, Lobel discarded every other consideration than the structure of plants, par- ticularly of their flowers, that being the period when they principally attract our attention. On this foundation, he investigated the natural affinities of plants to each other, and arranged those known to him in between forty and fift}'^ families, beginning with the grasses ; and gave a list of those beionorinCT to each familv, but without determining any common character by which the plants of each family may be known; leaving this decision, in respect to the plants not noticed by him, to the intelligence and acumen of the student. Csesalpinus, Ray, Tournefort, Hermann, Boerhaave, and other authors, who were trained in the schools of logic and of the mathematics, have endeavoured to supply this deficiency, and to exhibit the marks or characters by which the several natural families may be recognized, and have further attempted to arrange these families in a regular series, so that the student, instead of relying upon his own conceptions of the affinity of a plant with those known to him, may, from a consideration of its structure when in a perfect state, refer it to its proper family, and ascertain its name if already known, or have, in the other case, a well grounded assurance that it has not hitherto been described or named by authors. The first scientific botanists, in consequence of their attempts to employ none but very obvious characters, could only attain their end by using a multiplicity of them, and this necessitated an intricate arrangfement. Succecdinij- authors attempted simpler methods, by choosing a few par-
PREFACE. Vll ticular organs, common to the greater part of plants ; and collecting together, in classes and subdivisions, the several plants which agreed in respect to the structure or number of these chosen organs, vidthout any regard to the affinity a more accurate observation of the whole structure of the plant might develope. Of these mere artificial methods, as they are termed, Rivinus, professor at Leipzig, was the introducer, and he took his primary divisions from the regularity or irregularity of the corolla, or what is commonly called the bloom, and the number of parts into which it is cut, and subdivided each of these primary divisions in a uniform manner, according to the nature of the fruit. In this system he was followed by Hebenstreit, Knaut, Ludwig, and Ruppius. The botanists of this school considered the method of Rivinus in its proper light, as being merely a ready means of determining the family, or what is now called the genus, to which any plant belongs and, therefore, contented themselves with following it up to that point, leaving the further knowledge of plants to be sought for in the authors who have arranged their works by the natural affinities of plants, or other considerations. The want of the power of locomotion, by which plants are most evidently distinguished from the generality of animals, and the consequent inability of approaching each other, if the organs of reproduction were seated in distinct individuals and the analogy of animal generation strictly observed, while, at the same time, they are, from the same immobility, liable to a variety of accidents, which animals elude by the power of changing their place, rendered necessary the adoption of peculiar contrivances to preserve and multiply the species in which some analogy may be observed with those of animals, more apparent however than real. The prurient mind of Linnseus, so visibly exhibited in his mode of describing bivalve shells, was struck by the great difference between animals and vegetables in this respect; and he immediately applied himself to arrange ;
- Page 2: 3 2044 106 366 750 LIBRARY OF THE G
- Page 7 and 8: o NATURAL ARRANGEMENT OF BRITISH PL
- Page 9 and 10: TO THE MOST REVEREND CHARLES, BY DI
- Page 11: PREFACE. A VARIETY of methods have
- Page 15 and 16: PREFACE. IX plants : and there have
- Page 17 and 18: PllEFACE. XI Botanica. Whatever opi
- Page 19 and 20: PREFACE. Xiii laid down, and they a
- Page 21 and 22: THE GENERA OF BRITISH PLANTS, Accor
- Page 23 and 24: F. 193. Thamnidiura I 194. Mucor 5
- Page 25 and 26: 2. PLANT.E ENDOGENiE. 2 A. Pl. end.
- Page 27 and 28: 3. PLANT.E EXOGENiE. 3 A. Pl. ex. m
- Page 29 and 30: 161. Arbutus 1 162. Uva ursi 2 B. 1
- Page 31 and 32: 356. Potentnia 14 357. Fragaria 2 3
- Page 33 and 34: XXVll TOTAL NUMBERS. Fam. Gen. Spec
- Page 35 and 36: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. I. On the U
- Page 37 and 38: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 3 cicely, o
- Page 39 and 40: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 2. The Rise
- Page 41 and 42: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 7 copious.
- Page 43 and 44: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 9 some in t
- Page 45 and 46: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 11 Glanvill
- Page 47 and 48: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 13 Others w
- Page 49 and 50: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 15 case, th
- Page 51 and 52: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 17 the hand
- Page 53 and 54: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 19 mentione
- Page 55 and 56: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 21 a great
- Page 57 and 58: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANV. 23 pur than
- Page 59 and 60: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 25 1623. C.
- Page 61 and 62: INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 1696. Ray S
PREFACE. Vll<br />
ticular organs, common to the greater part of plants ; and<br />
collecting together, in classes and subdivisions, the several<br />
plants which agreed in respect to the structure or number<br />
of these chosen organs, vidthout any regard to the affinity a<br />
more accurate observation of the whole structure of the<br />
plant might develope. Of these mere artificial methods,<br />
as they are termed, Rivinus, professor at Leipzig, was the<br />
introducer, and he took his primary divisions from the<br />
regularity or irregularity of the corolla, or what is commonly<br />
called the bloom, and the number of parts into<br />
which it is cut, and subdivided each of these primary<br />
divisions in a uniform manner, according to the nature of<br />
the fruit. In this system he was followed by Hebenstreit,<br />
Knaut, Ludwig, and Ruppius. The botanists of this school<br />
considered the method of Rivinus in its proper light, as<br />
being merely a ready means of determining the family, or<br />
what is now called the genus, to which any plant belongs<br />
and, therefore, contented themselves with following it up<br />
to that point, leaving the further knowledge of plants to be<br />
sought for in the authors who have arranged their works<br />
by the natural affinities of plants, or other considerations.<br />
The want of the power of locomotion, by which plants<br />
are most evidently distinguished from the generality of<br />
animals, and the consequent inability of approaching<br />
each other, if the organs of reproduction were seated in<br />
distinct individuals and the analogy of animal generation<br />
strictly observed, while, at the same time, they are, from<br />
the same immobility, liable to a variety of accidents, which<br />
animals elude by the power of changing their place,<br />
rendered necessary the adoption of peculiar contrivances<br />
to preserve and multiply the species in which some analogy<br />
may be observed with those of animals, more apparent<br />
however than real.<br />
The prurient mind of Linnseus, so visibly exhibited in<br />
his mode of describing bivalve shells, was struck by the<br />
great difference between animals and vegetables in this<br />
respect; and he immediately applied himself to arrange<br />
;
Change language