The theme of antinatural (or unnatural) flora and the images of “monster plants” in the literature of French symbolism and decadence in the last decade are being actively studied in Western literary criticism. Among the authors who study this topic, the most famous are M.B. Collini, A. Campmas, M. Modenesi, V. Yankelevich, C. Coquio, O. Got, M. Cettou. They are convinced that “new imagery” or “new rhetoric” arose in French literature in the 1850s in the works of Baudelaire, and then developed among the writers of symbolism and decadence. They connect the concept of “new imagery” with the themes of “anti-natural flora” and “monster plants”. However, it is worth noting that the development of the “new” flora-image (“anti-natural”, “monster plants”, “exotic plants”) began in the first half of 19th century, also in romanticism with its closeness to nature, to the ideas of pantheism. The formation of new flora in the French literature of the 19th century is an inseparable process; its complex dynamics is largely determined by the continuity of the end-of-the-century floropoetics with sentimentalism and romanticism (despite the criticism of many of the postulates of romanticism in Baudelaire, Huysmans, Rimbaud, Mirbaud), as well as with Parnassus, realism, naturalism. According to researchers, the main reason for the creation of such images in literature after 1850 was the controversy with the tenets of romanticism, especially with the interest of the first-wave romantics in pantheism, the philosophy of nature, the desire to see the divine principle in nature. In addition, one of the reasons is monotony, the flattering of various flora patterns in the poetry of romanticism. Thus, for example, Huysmans’ statement in the novel On the Contrary - “Nature had had her day” - should be understood as “romanticism had had its day”. Nevertheless, some moments in similar studies and similar conclusions seem unclear. Everything would look quite logical if romanticism (both early (Chateaubriand) and late) itself had no statements related to the consideration of nature, like a monster or beast, if there were no examples of flora-patterns that in their form and type argue with the laws of nature. It seems quite obvious that the main essence of this “new rhetoric” or “new figurativeness” is not in its “enormity”, but in its subjectivity. Images become authorial, associative, even suggestive. After all, examples of monster plants and monstrous nature, non-living flora are found both in the literature of the beginning of the 19th century and after the 1850s. In the same way, examples of the “romantic” approach to the description of nature as a whole and its individual phenomena (that is, giving nature and its phenomena some special, divine, mountainous meaning) can be found in literature up to the turn of the 20th century. Moreover, throughout the 19th century, collections of poetry continue the tradition of classicism (“flower sonnets”). The author declares no conflicts of interests.