LINNEAN SOCIETY OE LOXDOK. 2^ 



received by a naturalist, who, having been almost exclnslvely 

 occupied with an existing Flora, is called upon to contrast with it 

 the fragmentary remains of anotlier Flora, whose species are, 

 without an exception, different from those now living, which 

 represent in part the vegetation of a period indefinitely antecedent 

 to the present, and have been succeeded by still other plants, 

 equally diverse from both, and which have likewise perished" 

 {p. 387). He realised the true interest of the enquiry, saying: — 

 " As a field for botanical research there is none so novel as the 

 coal formation, the few yards of shaft being more than e(juivalent 

 to the longest voyage, in respect of the amount and kind of dif- 

 ference between the vegetation the naturalist is ac(iuainted with 

 and that he seeks to understand " (p. 39-i). At the same time 

 Hooker, in this as in all his palajobotanical work, was deeply 

 impressed with the excessive difiSculties of the subject, and it must 

 be admitted that his criticisms, judicious as they always were, are 

 apt to sound somewhat depreciatory and discouraging. In the 

 later years of his life, as we shall see, he felt able, under the 

 influence of recent advances, to take a more hopeful view of 

 the position. 



In the Essay of 1848 Hooker expressed the opinion that the 

 classification of plants is less easily intelligible than t'.iat of 

 animals, being less concerned with external characters. " It is 

 partly," he says, " owing to these circumstances that the study 

 has been comparatively neglected ; partly also because a far 

 more comprehensive knowledge of the existing forms of plants 

 is required to make any progress in fossil botany, than of recent 

 zoology to advance equally in palaeontology " (p. 388). This is a 

 very just comment, and accounts in a great degree for the rather 

 late development of plant-palfeontology. 



While he recognised that the Carboniferous period presents 

 exceptional facilities for investigation, Hooker scarcely did justice 

 to the quality of its fossils. " Plants, whose tissues are so lax as 

 to be convertible after death into a mass of such uniform structure 

 as coal, evidently would not retain their characters well during 

 fossilization, under whatever favourable circumstances that opera- 

 tion may be conducted. We consequently find that few specimens 

 are available for scientific purposes" (p. 389). This somewhat 

 theoretical difficulty Avould not trouble one at the present day. 



It is interesting to find that Hooker already admitted the 

 necessity for anatomical work. He says that the investigator's 

 knowledge should embrace " a familiarity with vegetable anatomy, 

 for when the stem or trunk alone is preserved, which is often the 

 case, a minute examination of its tissues is the only method of 

 determining its position in the natural series " (p. 392). All the 

 same. Hooker was distrustful of anatomical characters, for in 

 discussing the affinities of SujilJaria eler/ans he says : — " It is not 

 by solitary characters, and least of all by such as the arrangement 

 of the tissues in the axis affords, that genera of plants are referred 

 to their natural orders " (p. 422). In this he was more cautious 



