METAMORPHOSIS IN PLANTS. 89 



which he reveals striking morphological insight. Whilst 

 his definitions may be criticised as lacking in precision, it 

 must be admitted that he had grasped the fundamental 

 ideas of morphology. Analysing the plant-body into root 

 and shoot, and the shoot into stem and leaf, he defines 

 these parts, not according to their function, but according 

 to their relative position and their form ; that is, he defines 

 them not as "organs," but as "members" of the body. 1 



As in the case of Wolff and of Goethe, so also in that 

 of Jung, the publication of new and epoch-making views 

 produced no effect upon the contemporary science, beyond 

 the fact that Jung's work was incorporated by Ray in his 

 Historia Plantarum (1686); nor, in Jung's case, was the 

 neglect of his contemporaries atoned for by the recognition 

 of posterity. 2 Certainly there is no trace of his influence 



quae supra sedem plantae in liquido corpore (aere vel aqua) exstat, et 

 speciei eminus propagandas praecipue inservit." 



"Limes communis, in quo duae istae partes cohaerent Fundus planke 

 dicitur, Graecis twO/a^v." 



" Pars superna, aut pars partis supernae est vel Caulis, vel Folium, vel 

 Flos, vel Fructus, vel minus secundaria aliqua pars, v.g. Villus aut Spina." 



" Caulis est pars superna, in altitudinem ita exporrecta, ut anteriora a 

 posterioribus, vel dextra sinistris non differant." 



" Folium est, quod a sede, cui adhaeret, ita in altitudinem, sive longi- 

 tudinem, et latitudinem extenditur, ut tertiae dimensionis termini inter se 

 differant, h. e. superficies folii interna ab externa." 



" Superficies folii interna, quae et superior, item supina dicitur, est 

 quae caulem respicit, ideoque vel cavitatis aliquid obtinet, vel minus con- 

 vexa est, quam altera exterior sive inferior, sive prona superficies." 



" Perfecta planter vel caulem a folio distinctum gerit vel confusum 

 cum eo. Quae confusum gerit, ea est, quae folium e folio producit, atque, 

 ita ex meris foliis caulem quasi quendam ramosum componit, qui eo dis- 

 crepat a natura caulis, quod partes prismatis figuram non referunt, sed cras- 

 sitiem latitudine minorem habent li.e. in latitudinem expansoz sunt, ideoque 

 etiam folia dicuntur. Rursus in eo caulis indolent exprimit hoc folium, 

 quia se propagat, quod folio proprie dicto non competit. Differt etiam id, 

 quod folium dicitur in his plantis a folio proprie dicto, quod superficies 

 latiores, figura non diversas, h.t. interiorem ac exteriore non dijferentem 

 obtinet." 



1 See Hofmeister, Allgemeine Morphologie, 1S68, p. 409, footnote 2 ; 

 Hanstein, But. Abhandlungen, i., 1870, p. 92. 



2 Albrecht, in his preface to the collected botanical works of Jun.;, 

 says on this point : " Mirati sumus saepius, qui factum sit, ut in historicis 



