Page:Makers of British botany.djvu/29

 Rh


 * 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