THE STATUS OF PALEOBOTANY 171 



of their theories. We need also a more philosophical attitude 

 toward morphological entities and a realization that they are 

 the end products of an evolution and not rigid unvarying mor- 

 phological species any more than are the species of the systematist. 



Paleobotany' has shown the independent development of het- 

 erospory and even of the seed-habit in unrelated Pteridophytes, 

 it has shown the development of secondary growth in various 

 unrelated orders. Why then must a leaf be a morphological 

 entity throughout the vegetable kingdom instead of a physio- 

 logical entity? 



The study of fossil plants is most properly a branch of botany. 

 It is on the other hand intimately associated with the science of 

 geology, as has been frequently emphasized. This is especially 

 true in the United States where the value of fossil plants as an 

 aid to the stratigraphic geologist is perhaps more appreciated and 

 they are certainly utilized to a greater extent than in any other 

 country. Furthermore the funds for the stud}' of fossil plants, 

 in this country at least, have come almost entirely from geology, 

 officially organized. The necessities of the geologist in his areal 

 mapping and in the correlation of his formations make it desir- 

 able for the paleobotanical workers to name fossils which are 

 often of but slight botanical interest or of unknown relationship. 

 This feature of the work combined with the modem trend of 

 botany away from the old ideals of systematic work into the 

 realms of chemistry and physics, and the extreme specialization 

 of its votaries as well as the narrow specialized training of botan- 

 ical students in general, has served to widen the breach between 

 botany and paleobotany, which deserted by its own mother, 

 has grown up with its foster mother, geology. 



However admirable morphological, cytological and physiolog- 

 ical work may be, and I do not wish to be understood as depreci- 

 ating this work in the slightest degree, it remains true that the 

 average botanical student of today does not know plants as he 

 should. Nor have the vast majority of mature workers any 

 appreciation of geologic time or of the march of vegetation over 

 the earth in bygone ages with which to properly orient themselves 

 for considering phylogeny, or even morphology. 



