Of these classes only the Fungi, Capillares, Stellatae, Labiatae,
Pomiferae, Tetrapetalae, Siliquosae, Leguminosae, Floriferae, and
Stamineae can pass as wholly or approximately natural groups, and
there are mistakes even in these; moreover the majority of them had
long been recognised. The examples annexed in brackets show how open
the others are to objection. If it must be allowed on the one side
that Ray, like Jung, doubts whether the Cryptogams are propagated
without seeds, it is on the other side obvious that he makes as little
objection as his predecessors, contemporaries, and immediate successors
to the idea that Polypes and Sponges are vegetables. But worse than
this is the extremely faulty subordination and coordination in his
system; while the class of Mosses contains the Confervae, Lichens,
Liverworts, Mosses, and Clubmosses, and therefore objects as distinct
from one another as Infusoria, Worms, Crabs, and Mollusks, we find on
the contrary the one family of Compositae split up into four classes
founded on quite petty and unimportant differences. Finally, if Ray
recognised the general importance to the system of the leaf-formation
in the embryo, he was still far from strictly separating all
Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons.
Ray’s chief merit is that he to some extent recognised natural
affinities in their broader features; the systematic separation of the
smaller groups was but little advanced by him. He too, like Morison,
found two adherents in Germany in the persons of Christopher Knaut
(1638-1694), who published a flora of Halle in 1687 arranged after
Ray’s method, and Christian Schellhammer (1649-1716), professor at
Helmstädt and afterwards at Jena.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account