280 HANDBOOK OF CRYPTOGAMIC BOTANY. 



in different senses by different writers of repnte. The fact is, we 

 are groaning under a terrible bondage in this matter, and it will be 

 welcome news that deliverance is at hand. The list of terms is 

 continually increasing ; every new writer seems to think he is 

 bound to add to it, even if he only provides synonyms for words 

 that have already a recognised meaning, or confers the very 

 doubtful benefit on his readers of compressing a short, simple 

 sentence mto a long, unwieldy word. Messrs. Bennett and Murray 

 rightly lay great stress on the necessity of taking some steps to 

 reduce the present chaotic and inconsistent mass of terms to 

 something like order and simplicity. To a great extent they are 

 successful, but in some instances there will be grave doubts whether 

 the means they have taken for rendering their terminology more 

 accurate and simple are really the best for the purpose. They 

 have, whenever possible, used anglicised instead of Latin or Greek 

 forms. To this it may be objected that the classical forms are of 

 cosmopolitan range, being equally applicable in all languages, 

 whereas the introduction of a special set of terms for each modern 

 language would greatly multiply the present vocabulary, instead of 

 relieving the existing plethora. The authors look forward with 

 confidence to seeing " all or nearly all of the anglicised terms they 

 have used gradually introduced into all English works on Crypto- 

 gamic Botany " ; but too-sangume expectations on this head might 

 well be toned down by remembering the complete failure of the 

 somewhat similar experiments made by Lindley, although that 

 distinguished botanist, with a like over-high estimate of the wisdom 

 of his fellow- creatures, " confidently believed that every intelligent 

 reader" would find his new anglicised names preferable to the 

 Latin ones for which he sought to substitute them. Prim worts, 

 Spurge worts, Beancapers, and Hippurids are decidedly simpler, 

 even if less euphonious, than PrimulacecB, EuphorbiacecB, Zygo- 

 ])hi/llacea', and Haloraf/aceie, yet the longer Latin terms are still 

 universally used, while the quasi-English ones have never obtained 

 even temporary acceptance; and Bentham's Butomes, Corydals, 

 and Capsells have experienced no kinder fate. 



It is worth while to remark in this connection that the specimens 

 of the new terminology given on p. 5, " sporange, archegone, 

 antherid, sclerote, epiderm," are extremely similar to those used 

 by Van Tieghem, viz. : Sporange, Archegone, Antheridie, Sclerote, 

 Epiderme. The anglicised terms are, probably without any con- 

 scious imitation, remarkably close to the gallicised form derived 

 from the same Greek or Latin originals. 



The rescuing of the word "spore" from the inconvenient exten- 

 sion given to it by Vines, and the restricting its use to denote a 

 separable cell which without sexual union is capable of direct 

 propagation, follows from the sound principle of basing a system of 

 terminology on facts which can be confirmed by actual observation 

 rather than on unproved hypotheses, and is distinctly a step in the 

 right direction of order and clearness. So also, in a minor matter, 

 the use of "megaspore" instead of macrospore is clearly an 

 advantage, both because it is more correct from an etymological 



