148 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



chlamydeae (e.g., Amentiferae, Centrosperinse) may be referable to 

 ancestors which existed before the separation of Monocotyledons 

 from Dicotyledons, or even before the advent of the present 

 Angiosperms. Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons may, in the 

 same way, owe their origin to distinct proangiospermous ancestors. 



The purpose of arranging all the Angiosperms in one genea- 

 logical tree with a Eanalian ancestor at its root has driven the 

 author to many forced and improbable conclusions. He persists 

 in the one-time fashionable idea, fostered by the work of Arber 

 and Parkin, that the Eanalian Angiosperm is directly connected 

 with the Bennettitean Gymnosperm ; it is surely time to recog- 

 nise the fundamental difference between the closed carpels of 

 Magnolia and the interseminal scales of Bennettites. The latter 

 may represent an unsuccessful effort at angiospermy ; but it has 

 nothing essential in common with the angiospermy of our modern 

 flowering plants. 



Thirty-two reasons — some of them excellent — are given for 

 regarding the Eanalian floral type as primitive ; but the relative 

 element in the primitive character is overlooked. The Amentiferae 

 may have also their primitive type, corresponding to their portion 

 of the angiospermous phyletic tree ; but it is incapable of com- 

 parison with the Eanalian type, w 7 hich lies at the base of a group 

 totally distinct (see New Phytologist, xi., 385). 



Berberidacese are regarded by the writer as containing the 

 most primitive floral types — relatively to all the Angiosperms — 

 and these he links closely with Cycad-like Gymnosperms (" voisin 

 des Bennettitacees ") ; from these all the Dicotyledons, and later 

 the Monocotyledons, have descended. 



We cannot but condemn the system in so far as it reflects the 

 supposition that the Angiosperms form a closely monophyletic 

 group, let alone that its foundation is tainted w 7 ith the significance 

 accorded to the resemblance between the flowers of Bennettites 

 and Magnolia ; but there is much to be admired in Mr. Hallier's 

 work. The system itself is commendable in its recognition of the 

 affinities of the various sympetalous groups with their several 

 polypetalous ancestors, and the " agglomerat heterogene " Sym- 

 petalae is abolished. The polyphyletic nature of this latter group 

 is thus admitted ; why, then, should not the so-called Archi- 

 chlamydeaB and the Monocotyledons be polyphyletic also ? 



Some interesting matter — e.g., a review of the theoretical 

 morphology of the leaf (177-186) and the perianth (186-195)— 

 is comprised in the "abrege," but too much stress is accorded 

 to characters which are open to the suspicion of phyletic 

 insignificance. The importance of floral as against vegetative 

 characters in the determination of the larger groups is not 

 sufficiently emphasized. Above all, the principles underlying 

 the system are not made clear; characters of any and every 

 description are used promiscuously in the determination of 

 affinities, without reference to their relative phyletic value or 

 the reasons for it. Biology may not be so neglected as it 

 is in this system. 



