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_.