AN INTRODUCTION TO STEUCTUKAL BOTANY. 27 



advantage — e. g. (J'ldogonium — since this is an elementary work 

 seeking after simplicity ; but it cannot be denied the author uses 

 (Edo(joniiun well. There are a few minor faults or rather omissions 

 that might have been supplied in revision. For example, the 

 citation of authorities. Selar/ineUa Krmtssiana A. Br. has a foot- 

 note explaining that A. Br. is Alexander Braun, the authority for 

 the name. But subsequent types — e. g. Pellia epiphjUa and Funaria 

 hi/;/rometrica — have neither authority nor footnote. They have a 

 grievance like that of the "poor tiger that had not got a Christian" 

 in the picture. 



Those of us who had been loyal or obstinate (any other adjective 

 of the kind will do) on the subject of the sexuality of the Ascomy- 

 cetes through very hard and bitter times will smile with triumph 

 at the recognition bestowed on SpJuBrothcca. Here it is, in an 

 elementary book for the teaching of the innocent young botanist at 

 the outset of his career. 



Of all botanical writers, at all points of the compass. Dr. Scott 

 is esteemed by his fellow- botanists as a man of caution, a foe to 

 wild speculation. But apparently he has half-holidays or other 

 brief periods of recreation in which he disports himself among 

 untamed reflections. After commenting on the " close relationship 

 of such a fungus as Fi/thiuia to such an alga as Vaucheria," he says 

 (p. 291), " The most important difference is the disappearance of 

 the spermatozoids, which are no longer differentiated in the fungus, 

 the male protoplasm being carried to the ovum by the fertilizing- 

 tube. This change has been compared to the change from fertili- 

 zation by a pollen-tube, in passing from cryptogams to phanerogams. 

 In both cases the disappearance of motile male cells is correlated 

 with the loss of aquatic environment," &c. Now all this may be so, 

 and if the types of a well-regulated morphology alone existed, it 

 would be acceptable and comforting. But what about SaproU'ijnia, 

 for example ? It also is a fungus with a similar likeness to Vaucheria. 

 It also has a fertilizing tube, though it be an imperfect one. But it 

 has not lost its aquatic environment. It is more aquatic, as a rule, 

 than many species of Vaucheria. Are we then to suppose Sapro- 

 lec/nia to be a prophet ? — or has it been doing its poor best to lose its 

 fertilizing tube, with the result of impotency — or is it a mere un- 

 successful toiler after Pi/tltiuiii., which it views from its watery 

 home ? or has it repented and gone back to the deep only to find it 

 could never resume its full functional activity in this respect? 

 Alas ! these things may be amusing, but it is difficult to emancipate 

 oneself from a moist environment of tears. Br. Scott has permitted 

 himself to state this one little apparently harmless bit of speculation 

 unchecked by his habitual stern criticism. However, readers will 

 not (as assuredly he will not) misunderstand our poking fun at so 

 trivial a matter. The book has been greatly needed, and fulfils 

 the expectations of those who have looked for it. The figures are 

 excellent, and the "get-up" and price of the book satisfactory. It 

 will, beyond doubt, have the long career of usefulness we cordially 

 wish for it. 



G. M. 



