PREFACE

From these examples cited, it is sufficiently clear that monoecious plants with separate male and female flowers on the same individual and dioecious plants where male and female flowers are on separate individuals flowers vary considerably and are not always constant. Furthermore, in many male flowers, a rudimentary pistil the female reproductive organ is present, as seen in Euclea, Hydrocharis, Jatropha, and others. If, therefore, these classes are retained, a great deal of confusion arises; there will never be any certainty in examining those plants which either occasionally possess hermaphrodite bisexual flowers at the same time—that is, those which are polygamous—or those which vary between dioecious and androgynous having both male and female flowers on one plant flowers due to soil and climate. On the contrary, there will be no difficulty in referring a plant with a male flower to the hermaphroditic classes, and the same species with a female flower to its respective order, whether it be monoecious, dioecious, or even polygamous.

III. The class of Polygamia, even if the preceding two could be retained, ought to be entirely abolished, as it is utterly useless and causes the greatest confusion in the examination of plants. There are many plants, even those not assigned to this class, which have polygamous flowers, such as almost all the Umbellates plants with flower clusters like an umbrella, such as carrots or parsley, the greater part of the Syngenesia plants with fused anthers, like daisies, and various others, such as the genera Rhamnus, Diosma, Ilex, Aesculus, Laurus, Mammea, Calophyllum, Rhus, Royena, and the rest. In reducing plants to this class, it is necessary that a hermaphrodite flower be present: once this is found, it is easy to refer the plant to another class according to the number of its stamens. If a male or female flower is found separately, we still do not know whether the plant—