188U. 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



29 



ber that this embraces onl}' structural Botany, 

 and that parts on Morphology and Physiology 

 are to follow, we may have some idea of the 

 minute and yet extensive labor Dr. Gray has 

 bestowed on his task. It must be a great pleas- 

 ure to the distinguished author to know that his 

 heavy labors are so highly appreciated as the , 

 call for a sixth edition of this work indicates. 

 When he first entered the botanical field it was 

 not highly cultivated. Much, indeed, had been 

 done for descriptive botan}', and in the more 

 philosophical departments, Barton, Xuttall and 

 others had worked well. But much remained 

 to be done, and notwithstanding the zeal of those 

 who loved the science in those days, it is but 

 fair to say that the chief dependence of Ameri- 

 cans was on European works. It is not so now. 

 The work of foreign botanists is no less es- 

 teemed than it ever was, but American botany 

 has been brought to a higher level. It ranks 

 with any other in the estimation of the world, 

 and it will be no derogation to the work of the 

 many excellent American Botanists now in the 

 field to say that to Dr. Gray the chief honors in 

 this high character belongs. 



It is interesting to notice how botan}- has pro- 

 gressed during the past thirty or forty years as in- 

 dicated by this work. Before us lies the second 

 edition of this "work, issued in 1845, of 496 pages, 

 covering all the ground. Xow something less 

 than this only comprises one-third the task. In 

 this he has now, however, good assistance ; two 

 of his former pupils, Goodale and Farlow will 

 undertake the other volumes. 



These works are, as their name implies, text 

 books. They are intended as works of refer- 

 ence rather than for consecutive study; and they 

 are for those who may regard themselves as 

 tolerably perfect in the science, as well as for 

 those who are at the lower end. It would have 

 been better if an index had been given to it in- 

 stead of a mere table of contents; this would 

 have enhanced its " text " book character. 



By a comparison of this with other editions it 

 is interesting to note how Dr. Gray's views of 

 things have changed in some respects. This is 

 to be expected, for it is no use to live unless we 

 learn. We note this in order to encourage stu- 

 dents to explore even beyond where our es- 

 teemed author has carried them, lie would be 

 the last to regard himself as infallible, and 

 would be as glad as any to have weak places 

 strengthened, or dark passages made plain. It 

 strikes us as not improbable that the theoretical 



conception of the plant unit or " phytomer,'^ 

 which he adopts, will ultimately prove untena- 

 ble. By this idea all of a stem between each 

 node may be regarded as the organized plants* 

 lowest terms. Under this conception one can 

 scarcely understand how any portion of an inter- 

 node could ever be made to become a perfect 

 plant. Dr. Gray, if we understand him correctly, 

 seems to regard this as a test, for at p. 317 he 

 remarks, " the phytomer is in itself indivisible, 

 except by mutilation," and in the same chap- 

 ter we are told that this ideal phytomer is the 

 analogue of the individual in animals, that is to 

 say the animal is indivisable. But though it is 

 true that the parts of an internode will not often 

 divide and form individual plants, they some- 

 times do, as good gardeners know. The stems 

 of Torenia Asiatica have been chopped to 

 •'mince meat," and all the little pieces grow. 

 Moreover, though in the case of woody trees, a 

 Horse chestnut for instance, there may be a 

 space of a foot between two nodes, and if we cut 

 these apart in a one year old shoot, no growth 

 will appear nearer than from the bud already 

 formed below; this " individuality " disappears 

 after the space has become a year or two old,, 

 and a bud, indeed many buds will form from 

 any part of the space that may be cut across. 

 Indeed it appears to us that the whole facts con- 

 nected with the growth of adventitious buds are 

 opposed to the phytonic conception. 



Further, we expect to see in the future consid- 

 erable modifications of Dr. Gray's views in rela- 

 tion to conceptions in cross-fertilization of 

 flowers, now introduced in Dr. Gray's Text- 

 books for the first time, as if the logic were in- 

 controvertible. This speculation as formulated 

 by Mr. Darwin, is that it is an almost universal 

 law of nature that all the higher organic beings 

 require an occasional cross with another indi- 

 vidual, that no hermaphrodite fertilizes itself 

 for a perpetuity of generations. But as the ph}'- 

 tomer in the plant is the analogue of the indi- 

 vidual in animals, it is not easy to understand 

 \ what relation such a formula has to do with 

 I plants at all. Even as regards the facts of fer- 

 ! tilization in flowers, it is now known that though, 

 there are in many cases evident arrangements 

 for inter-crossing, the great majority of plants- 

 are habitually self-fertilized, even in those cases 

 which have these adaptations for cross-fertiliza- 

 tion. There may be, therefore, millions of 

 plants of the same species in the world from, 

 self-fertilized seed for every single plant fronx 



