eply pinnately partite; but
_drawn_--as neither pinnate nor partite!

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

And this is your modern cheap science, in ten volumes. Now I haven't a
quiet moment to spare for drawing this morning; but I merely give the main
relations of the petals, A, and blot in the wrinkles of one of the lower
ones, B, Fig. 12; and yet in this rude sketch you will feel, I believe,
there is something specific which could not belong to any other flower. But
all proper description is {94} impossible without careful profiles of each
petal laterally and across it. Which I may not find time to draw for any
poppy whatever, because they none of them have well-becomingness enough to
make it worth my while, being all more or less weedy, and ungracious, and
mingled of good and evil. Whereupon rises before me, ghostly and untenable,
the general question, 'What is a weed?' and, impatient for answer, the
particular question, What is a poppy? I choose, for instance, to call this
yellow flower a poppy, instead of a "likeness to poppy," which the
botanists meant to call it, in their bad Greek. I choose also to call a
poppy, what the botanists have called "glaucous thing," (glaucium). But
where and when shall I stop calling things poppies? This is certainly a
question to be settled at once, with others appertaining to it.

7. In the first place, then, I mean to call every flower either one thing
or another, and not an 'aceous' thing, only half something or half another.
I mean to call this plant now in my hand, either a poppy or not a poppy;
but not poppaceous. And this other, either a thistle or not a thistle; but
not thistlaceous. And this other, either a nettle or not a nettle; but not
nettlaceous. I know it will be very difficult to carry out this principle
when tribes of plants are much extended and varied in type: I shall persist
in it, however, as far as possible; and when plants change so much that one
cannot with any conscience call them by their family name any more, I shall
put them aside somewhere among families of poor relations, not {95} to be
minded for the present, until we are well acquainted with the better bred
circles; I don't know, for instance, whether I shall call the Burnet
'Grass-rose,' or put it out of court for having no petals; but it certainly
shall not be called rosaceous; and my first point will be to make sure of
my pupils having a clear idea of the central and unquestionable forms of
thistle, grass, o