Methodus plantarum emendata et aucta

...[not] were, as one who lived in the country far from London and Oxford, where there was neither a botanical library nearby which I might consult in a doubtful matter, nor a Physic Garden Hortus Medicus: a garden dedicated to the study of plants for medicinal use; the most famous were at Oxford and Chelsea which I might visit to inspect plants not yet sufficiently explored; and for whom neither leisure nor resources were available for seeking out, buying, and cultivating plants. For these reasons, I had not rarely been forced to follow probable conjectures, and what I might suspect rather than what I had found for certain.

It follows in the next place that I show how far I have progressed in improving or defending my Method. Four years after that Method was published, I brought to light a general History of Plants original Latin: Historia Plantarum; Ray’s massive three-volume work published between 1686 and 1704, in which I arranged herbs according to that system, with a few changes. However, when it came to Trees, I noticed that Palms differ from other trees in almost the same way as Grasses and grass-leaved plants original: Graminifolias; this reflects Ray’s early recognition of the distinction between Monocots and Dicots differ from other herbs. Seeing that they agree among themselves in their whole habit and external appearance, the texture of their parts, and their manner of germinating, and differ from other trees, I recognized that they should be separated from them and all referred to their own proper genus. This was despite the fact that they differ in fruit—being dry in some and moist in others—and were therefore pulled apart into different categories, namely the stone-fruit bearing original: Pruniferarum and the nut-bearing original: Nuciferarum groups, in that earlier Method. Furthermore, since I saw that the position of the flowers with respect to the fruit was of great importance to...