242 



F. 0. BOWER. 



The latter observer,^ who appears to have suffered some delay 

 in the publication of his results^ confined his attention to the 

 study of the plastids in the Angiosperms ; and, having inves- 

 tigated for the most part the same questions as Schimper, he 

 arrives at conclusions which coincide nearly enough with 

 those already mentioned in this paper to show that the obser- 

 vations of both investigators are worthy of credit in all the 

 most important points. 



Unfortunately these two authors^ working and writing at 

 different institutions at the same time, have adopted different 

 terms for the same structures, and it may assist those who will 

 subsequently read the papers on this subject, if a table of 

 synonyms be given, which may serve as a key to connect the 

 terms used by these authors one with another and with the 

 older nomenclature. 



Priority is a strong argument in favour of the nomenclature of 

 Schimper, and further, the terms which he employs explain them- 

 selves, which cannot be said for those of Meyer. For these 

 reasons I have decided to retain the terms proposed by Schimper. 



It will be unnecessary here to enter into detail on the results 

 of Meyer's observations. It will answer the present purpose 

 better to note only the more important points in which he 

 differs from Schimper, or where he has covered ground which 

 was not touched by Schimper. 



Meyer enters more into detail as to the chemical composi- 

 tion and minute structure of the plastids than Schimper ; for 

 details readers must be referred to the original work. It is. 



