204 ROLLINS 



parable reference point for anyone who has access to a specimen of the set. 

 By this technique, many taxonomists at places remote from one another may 

 be provided with written information plus samples to verify it. A refinement 

 of this procedure is to collect a large number of specimens with the uniformity 

 of the specimens in mind. When these are distributed, more or less comparable 

 samples are in the hands of the recipients. 



STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS 



Developmental processes are no more important to the ultimate under- 

 standing of plants than the structures that culminate these processes, although 

 in these days we are often told otherwise. At least up to the present, it is 

 no mere happenstance that taxonomy has concerned itself to a large extent 

 with structural features of plants. For the most part, these have provided 

 fruitful and reliable bases for systems of classification and evidences of rela- 

 tionship, while developmental modes and processes have been elusive and 

 difficult to assess in these connections. Furthermore, the tremendous mass of 

 available morphological and anatomical information has made it a practical 

 necessity to utilize these data for taxonomical purposes. The major depend- 

 ency of taxonomy upon structure is not a new development. The interdepend- 

 ency of taxonomy, morphology, and anatomy stretches back to their begin- 

 nings. The intricate threads of phylogenetical connections among the major 

 plant groups seem only amenable to elucidation through structural studies. 

 Genetical methodology is not adaptable above the generic level, and the data 

 from physiology and biochemistry are much too sparse to be of any great 

 value at the present time. This is at least true for vascular plants. In some 

 of the lower plant groups, a very large amount of potentially useful chemical 

 information is being accumulated, and in some instances this has been brought 

 to bear on taxonomical problems. 



A knowledge of the structural features of plants is so obviously a prerequi- 

 site to any serious taxonomical work that these two aspects of botany are 

 and ought to be inseparable. Therefore it leads to redundancy to try to de- 

 velop any idea of a system of interrelationship between taxonomy on the 

 one hand and the subjects dealing with structure on the other. Taxonomy is 

 utterly dependent on morphological and anatomical information, and tax- 

 onomists have been major contributors to these fields over the years. 



Perhaps the most significant new approaches arise from the careful, pains- 

 taking evaluation of anatomical and morphological data in relation to pre- 

 sumed phylogenetic sequences. In the work of Bailey (1954) and his asso- 

 ciates and students, dealing with the so-called Ranalean complex, is found an 

 excellent model showing what can be done to clarify structures and relation- 

 ships. It is interesting to observe that refined techniques have played a sig- 

 nificant role in the development of critical evaluations of structural features 



