220 THE JOUKNAL OF EOT ANY 



ANDKOEOIUM AND GYNOECIUM. 



By a. H. Church. 



As the rule for spelling these very essential botanical terms is still 

 somewhat vague and casual, while writers using the above orthography 

 are frequently snubbed by would- be purists, it may be of interest to 

 place on record the history and various modes of writing these terms ; 

 they have undoubtedly come to stay as convenient conventions in 

 Floral Terminology, and it is time that some ruling was accepted in 

 ths matter by English writers. For example, in a recent publication 

 (^Botany of the Living Plant, 1919, p. 221), Professor Bower retains 

 the present spelling as distinctive and suitable, for the sake of uni- 

 formity, though acknowledging that the etymology may be faulty. 

 In support of Prof. Bower's usage, continued from his well-known 

 Practical Botany (in several editions, 1894, 1902), it may be stated 

 at once that there is much more to be said for this method etymo- 

 logically than for the popular variant gynaeceum ; though it is again 

 possible that to others both methods of spelling may be equally o^^en 

 to criticism. It may be also admitted that it is ridiculous to spell 

 two such homologized expressions on a different plan ; while to have 

 to explain such subtle distinctions to a class of students with ordinary 

 common sense is a])t to make a teacher of elementary botany both 

 look and feel a fool ; there can be no doubt that the retention of such 

 complexities of terminology in a science already over-burdened with 

 vestigial and traditional phraseology encourages a disrespect for the 

 pedantries of pseudo-science. Grood terms are necessary, and there 

 should be no difficulty about their correct presentation. 



The first appearance of the two words now considered dates from 

 an essay written in Latin {Linnaea, i. 433) by J. Poeper, so far a 

 classicist, and the words are given quite clearly and definitely with 

 their proposed etymology (p. 437), as androeceum^ ex a.vr\p et dt/w-os 

 (without accents), and (p. 438) gynaeceum^ ex yvvr\ et o\i:o% : "Hie 

 verticillus foliis foemineis efformatus baud inepte forsan gynoecei 

 nomine designari posset." To the apostle of priority the terms ar^ 

 thus established once for all on a reasonable basis, and there is no 

 more to be said ; the expressions are good words, fairly euphonious, 

 conceived in correlated form, i. <?., made to match, both involving the 

 idea of a locus {ihkos), and with no necessary reference to women 

 (y.ui/ajK-es). The terms are quoted in this form, though indicated as 

 rt3dundant, by Schleiden in his text-book,|1842 (c/! Eng. Trans. 1849, 

 Lankester, p. 31(5, the oe being written as a diphthong) ; but the 

 latter term made little headway so long as Linnean writers were still 

 obsessed with the herbalist's tenn pistil (^"pestle," with a variant 

 as pointal), which apparently dates from Tournefort ( 1700) . Similarly 

 even at the present day the terms are frequently omitted by many 

 writers (cif'. Engler & Prantl) to whom the conception of the 

 androecium and gynoecium as specialized regions of the flower with a 

 certain individuality of their own, to be reduced or elaborated inde- 

 pendently of the other parts, is still unfamiliar. The expressions 

 really imply much more than a mere aggregate of stamens or carpels, 



