Introduction 163 



Radlkofer was followed a little later by Vesque, by whom 

 the elaboration or development of the method was con- 

 siderably extended. Vesque laid great stress on the struc- 

 ture of the leaf within the limits of the genus as illustrating 

 systematic affinity. Engler and Prantl later gave their 

 support to this mode of treatment. If Radlkofer may be 

 regarded as the founder of this movement, the great impor- 

 tance which came to be attached to it towards the end of 

 the century was in large measure due to his pupil Solereder. 

 Not only did he develop the idea beyond any other writer, 

 but in 1898 he published his encyclopaedic treatise on the 

 systematic anatomy of the Dicotyledons. The value 

 claimed for this rapidly growing method was happily stated 

 by him in the preface to this great work : 



" The next 100 years will be devoted to the anatomical 

 method." These significant words of an illustrious botanist 

 (Radlkofer, 1883) are directly responsible for the publica- 

 tion of this work. Repeated earlier attempts had been 

 made to employ the characters afforded by the anatomy 

 of the vegetative and reproductive organs in conjunction 

 with external features, for systematic purposes, and for 

 a long time such characters have been of service to those 

 engaged in applied science as a means of determining 

 vegetable products. Both de Candolle and Endlicher had 

 found anatomical characters useful in the division of the 

 Phanerogams into the Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons. 

 It is only in recent times, however, that certain well-known 

 investigators, and foremost among them Radlkofer, have 

 succeeded in demonstrating in a convincing manner the 

 scientific value of anatomical characters for systematic 

 purposes, and in founding an anatomical method. With 

 the help of this they have been able to solve systematic 

 problems which otherwise could scarcely have been eluci- 

 dated and to throw an essentially new light on scientific 

 questions relating to the delimitation of species, genera, 

 and orders, as well as to natural affinities. Considering 

 these brilliant results, it is not surprising that small success 

 attended the opposition of systematists of the old school 



L 2 



