HERBEET SPENCER* S BIOLOGY. 379 



axils of the bracts, as in cases of prolification of the inflorescence, 

 (prolijlcatio a latere,) or from tlie axils of the sepals or petals — axil- 

 lary prolification. 



Mr. Spencer proceeds with his argument thus : — " If, when an 

 umbellule is developed in place of a flower, the explanation is, 

 that its component rays are axillary to the foliar organs of the 

 flower superseded ; we may fairly require that these foliar organs 

 to which they are axillary shall be shown." Certainly, if the case 

 were as Mr. Spencer states it ; and in cases of axillary prohfication 

 these foliar organs can be shown, or if not actually present, the 

 cicatrices can be demonstrated to prove their former existence. 

 Moreover, the position of the adventitious buds in relation to the 

 parts of the flower is, in general, amply sufficient to enable the ob- 

 server to ascertain to what organ the new bud is, or was, axillary. 

 But this has little to do with the present question ; the secondary 

 umbellules are no more derived from the axillary buds of a trans- 

 formed flower, than are the primary umbels. These secondary 

 pedicels may, indeed, arise from the sides of an extremely contracted 

 axis, and from the axil of one of the bracts of the involucre, when 

 present ; but that is a very different thing from saying that they 

 arise either from a transformation of any of the foliar parts of the 

 flower, or from the development of an axillary bud belonging to 

 either of the foliar organs. 



Mr. Spencer cavils at Botanists for speaking of a node as imper- 

 fect, if not provided with a leaf and a bud, for, says he, " there are 

 plenty of nodes without buds, and therefore Groethe's notion of the 

 non-existence of a node without a bud is incorrect." In so saying, 

 the writer loses sight of the aim and object of an hypothesis — a sin- 

 gular thing in one who professes to work on the deductive plan. 

 "We must not, however, follow out this topic, or it would lead us too 

 far ; let us return to our proper subject. " Flower-bearing rays,'* 

 continues Mr. Spencer, " that are homologous in position, with petals 

 and stamens, we may conclude have arisen by development of foliar 

 into axial buds." Apart from the ambiguity here between foliar and 

 axial buds, we find it difficult to consider one petal or one stamen 

 as the representative of a bud, or capable, under certain conditions, 

 of being transformed into a bud. The nearest approach to anything 

 of the kind that we can call to mind at the moment, is that of the 

 leaves of the Tomatoe, mentioned by M. Duchartre, as bearing a tuft 



