i)r/A. ^t-Wn on the Vegetable IndiiiSJ&. 841 



Roeper's works*. Linn sens expressed the sairie'tliougm in ?fie 

 words '^ gemma totidem herhceJ^ And I am thus led to make* a 

 particular remark, which is intended at the same time to modifj^ 

 in some degree what I said before in relation to the annually 

 renewed generations of trees. It is indeed true that branches 

 of trees and perennial herbs, especially in temperate climates, 

 first appear as buds; and in a more extended sense we call ih 

 general every young branch a bud, even if its parts are not, as 

 they usually are, compactly arranged and folded together ; still, 

 all buds are not the rudiments of branches. Lateral buds are" 

 the only ones from which branches originate, and therefore they 

 alone are to be regarded as new lines of development, — as indi- 

 viduals. Terminal buds, on the contrary, are nothing but still- 

 undeveloped parts of the (relative) principal axis : they are mere 

 continuations and augmentations of the individual already ex- 

 isting, and are not to be regarded as commencements of a new 

 onef. Hence, only those trees which produce no terminal 

 buds, as the Linden, Willow and Elm, develope new individuals 

 and nothing else at each renewal of vegetation ; while, on this' 

 contrary, those which do produce terminal buds also, as for 

 example the Oak and Poplar, bear a mixed annual generation, 

 which consists partly of new individuals, partly of old ones 

 reawakenhig and continuing their development with renewed 

 vigour. ■^'' ''^'-^-^ -^- •' ''-'■' ' '-"-■'■^'^-i'j-^- 



I have already remarked how unessential the presence of 

 branches is in many plants. A comparison of stocks grown on 

 a rich soil with those of a poor one shows what license is given 

 to plants in regard to producing branches, and how different 

 the appearance of specimens of the same species thus becomes. 

 Plants grown o^n a poor soil are often called dwarfs; but 



pendicularis (caulis, ramus, ramuliis, flos) individuum vegetabile vocatur.'* 

 This is the most definite description I know of; for in this passage not 

 only the branches so called, but also every arbitrary shoot, even when it is 

 merely a flower, is acknowledged to be a particular individual. Besides 

 what I have stated in the text in regard to the appearance of terminal 

 buds, I have only to remark, against the word " gemma," that in its 

 growth every shoot does not enjoy a perceptible state of gemmation, i. e. 

 a state of rest in which its parts are folded together. The term ' bud' is 

 applicable to but one state of a shoot or of its parts, and therefore cannot 

 be a suitable expression for what is to be regarded as the vegetable in- 

 dividual. ( ! t 1 , , 



t Kiitzing (Phil. 'fe^i.'n. p. 146) aptly expresses tliese relations by 

 calling the terminal bud the continuation of the " series of formiations; * 

 lateral buds, beginnings of a new " series of generations." In contradic- 

 tion with these terms, however, he calls the bud an " organ " as long as it 

 is connected with the natural individual,- — a term inapplicable to the bud ik 

 it is to the developed branch, of which it is the adolescent state. '■ 



