9 o SCIENCE PROGRESS. 



in the works of Linnaeus, any more than in those of Wolff 

 and of Goethe. But Wolff's own work contributed materially 

 to the advance of morphology. As already pointed out, he 

 established a definite contrast between the stem as the 

 axial member of the body, and the leaves as the appendi- 

 cular members. Whilst it is true that he regarded the root 

 as of the same nature as the stem, it is clear that he did 

 not do so in consequence of any confusion of ideas ; what 

 he meant to convey was that they are to this extent of the 

 same nature, that they are both axial, as distinguished from 

 appendicular, members. Far from confusing them, he was 

 the first to point out one of their fundamental morphological 

 differences, namely, that the stem bears leaves whilst the root 

 never does so ; and further, he discovered the endogenous 

 mode of development which is characteristic of the root. 



If we now compare the definitions of the chief members 

 of the plant given by Aristotle, Linnaeus and Wolff, the 

 essential difference between the physiological and the 

 morphological points of view stand out in striking contrast. 

 Taking the root, for example, we find that Aristotle re- 

 gards it as the organ for the absorption of nourishment 

 and that Linnaeus describes it in almost identical terms : 

 " Radix descendens, aquosa sorbens, nutriens " (Syst. Nat.) ; 

 while Wolff sees in it the part of the plant which does not 

 bear leaves. At the same time it must be clearly appre- 

 hended that these two points of view are not mutually ex- 

 clusive : for whilst the root is distinguished morphologically 

 as the member of the plant-body which bears neither leaves 

 nor flowers, it may be regarded physiologically, and with 

 equal justice, as an absorbent organ. It is not too much 



de fatis et incrementis studii botanici scriptis, multo minus vero in 

 Isagogicis seu Institutionibus nulla fere, vel saltern rarior Jungianis meritis, 

 quae sane in hac re magna sunt, digna legatur commemoratio, Quin ipse 

 solertissimus et in perfectiorem rei botanica; emendationem natus Linnoeus 

 Doxoscopiarum Jungianarum ne meminit quidem, licet vir sit in biblio- 

 thecis botanicis versatissimus, atque Isagoges fecerit justam mentionem. 

 Causam sane aliam suspicari non licet, nisi quod ad oculos tanti viri illae 

 non pervenerint, alias enim integerrimum virum Jungium nostrum, nisi in 

 critica botanica socium sibi adjunxisse, certe tamen inter Philosophos 

 aeque primum locum illi assignaturum fuisse non dubitamus." 



