'^'^^•'1 Excursion to Whittlesea. 121 



1913 J 



species of eucalypts were seen, among them being E. elceophora, 

 E. dives, E. ritbida, E. paludosa, and E. coriacea, and, thanks 

 to the fires, we were able to collect a number of seedlings of 

 the different species. Some specimens of a very singular fungus, 

 Morchella conica, Pers., figured by Dr. Cooke in his " Handbook 

 of Austrahan Fungi," were found alongside the foot-track 

 near its commencement, but they quickly shrivelled up to very 

 small dimensions. Our driver awaited our return at the 

 entrance, and we were soon back at Whittlesea, where tea was 

 taken before taking train for town. The weather was all that 

 could be desired, and none regretted the outing, though some- 

 what marred by the sight of blackened trunks and withered 

 shrubs. — ^F. G. A. Barnard. 



OBSERVATIONS ON THE FUNCTION OF ACACIA 

 LEAF GLANDS 



By Reginald Kelly. 

 (Read before the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, i ith Aug., 191 3.) 



In the Victorian Naturalist for June, 1912 (vol. xxix., p. 26)' 

 is an interesting article carefully written and illustrated by Mr- 

 A. D. Hardy, F.L.S., on " The Distribution of Leaf Glands in 

 Some Victorian Acacias." On reading this, the question one 

 naturally asks is, " What is the function of these so-called 

 glands ? " and imphedly also, " Are they glands ? " The paper 

 professes only to deal with situation, not function, and one 

 searches anxiously for a clue to their use, and wonders if the 

 situation has any relation to function or its history. There 

 is one reference only that appears at first sight to have any 

 bearing on this question, and from that I first began my in- 

 vestigation. That reference is to the nerve connecting the 

 midrib with the gland. Now, a nerve connecting with this 

 knot or gland suggests, first, a true nerve, and inferentially a 

 ganglionic function. Investigation shows, however, that this 

 alleged nerve is nothing more nor less than a strand of tissue 

 of the same nature as the midrib itself, and is a " nerve " only 

 by virtue — or, rather, by the vice — of loose botanical expression. 

 In botany, nerves, veins, and ribs are synonymous terms, or 

 at best only differentiated in their order of thickness. When 

 we remember that botany is a biological subject, and that these 

 three terms are, biologically, widely distinct and functionally 

 definite, the conclusion is forced on us that we cannot speak 

 or think in biological terms on this division of the subject. It 

 is high time that botanists found other terms to replace 

 " nerves " and " veins," if not ribs. It is plain that the gland 

 is not a nervous centre ; the " nerve " is not a line of com- 



