There is, at first sight, this broad difference between the descriptive language of Botany and of Comparative {350} Anatomy; that in the former science, we have comparatively few parts to describe, (_calyx_, _corolla_, _stamen_, _pistil_, _pericarp_, _seed_, &c.): while each of these parts is susceptible of many forms, for describing which with precision many terms must be provided: in Comparative Anatomy, on the other hand, the skeletons of many animals are to be regarded as modifications of a common type, and the terms by which their parts are described are to mark this community of type. The terminology of Botany has for its object _description_; the language of Comparative Anatomy must have for its basis _morphology_. Accordingly, Mr. Owen's terms are selected so as to express the analogies, or, as he calls them, the _homologies_ of the skeleton; those parts of the skeleton being termed _homologues_, which have the same place in the general type, and therefore ought to have the same name. Yet this distinction of the basis of botanical and anatomical terminology is not to be pushed too far. The primary definitions in botany, as given by Linnæus, are founded on morphological views; and imply a general type of the structure of plants. These are his definitions (_Phil. Bot._ Art. 86). CALYX, _Cortex_ plantæ in Fructificatione præsens. COROLLA, _Liber_ plantæ in Flora præsens. STAMEN, Viscus pro Pollinis præparatione. PISTILLUM, Viscus fructui adherens pro Pollinis receptione. PERICARPIUM, Viscus gravidum seminibus, quæ matura dimittit.