~ 
104 
fication, it is also equally evident that it does not represent a 
department of the science of the same grade as that of Anatomy. 
Summing up these conclusions we practically return to the 
same position which Gray assumed so long ago. As a science, 
botany may be divided in two branches, morphology and physi- 
ology. Practically it is divided into systematic botany and physi- 
ology, or into two branches of such a character that one is and 
must be represented by systematic, the other by experimental and 
theoretical work. To illustrate more fully what is meant by this, 
as well as to substantiate the statement, one example may be 
given, the botanical work in the University of Berlin. It is well 
known that there are two departments about equal in rank, physi- 
ology and systematic botany. In the department of physiology, 
of which Prof. Scwendener is at the head, general botany is taught, 
that is, the different branches as above described as included under 
the head of scientific botany ; the principal work, however, of this 
department is physiological and that of the highest order. In the 
other school, of which Prof. Engler has charge, systematic work 
forms the main line of study, and this is known as sfecial botany. 
There is no other provision for special branches, except that which 
falls naturally into one or the other of these two provinces. Thus 
while the instruction given in both cases necessarily is not limited 
by closé lines of definition, the work really shapes itself in two 
directions, and these two lines are those which represent at the 
present day, the natural divisions of the subject. As to their rela- 
tive importance there is not the slightest room for discussion, as 
no physiologist can succeed without a fair knowledge of systematic 
botany, while the reverse is equally true. 
These somewhat prolix statements of more or less familiar 
facts were thought necessary in order to define exactly the posi- 
tion which plant anatomy holds to the remaining branches, and 
its consequent relative importance. It holds a similar relation to 
physiology that morphological botany does to classification. It 
is no more possible to succeed in the investigation of questions 
now interesting the scientific world in the province of plant physi- 
ology, without a thorough knowledge of the minutest details of 
internal structure, than it is to take up questions of similar import- 
ance in the field of plant classification without a practical know- 
