621 
are easily recognisable from the anatomical structure of their wood 
alone. 
The method used by us, though extremely simple and well known 
In its principles, by aiming at a complete survey of the anatomical 
structures, an analysis leaving no rest, becomes a very laborious 
task, taxing rather heavily the psychical energy of the student. But 
a somewhat wide experience in these matters has taught us that 
only by the help of this method, results really worth while are to 
be attained in anatomical investigations of every kind. 
Thus it is our conviction that the eyes of students in anatomy 
must be gradually opened to this truth. But we. feel very well 
that this is not a result easily to be obtained. It is a notion 
widely spread among botanists, that every one having some general 
anatomical knowledge can, without making use of any special 
method or form, construct with great facility a good and useful 
description of anatomical structure. Literature more and less recent 
abounds with proofs of the truth of what has been said here. Des- 
criptions are to be found everywhere, unripe, incomplete, abounding in 
repetitions and omissions, referring to many things with whieh the 
reader is not in the least concerned, unsteady and supported by lots 
of necessary and unnecessary drawings. *) 
We cannot see however that up to this date the example we try 
to give has procured us many followers. Nevertheless we want some 
because there are most tmportant problems, only to be solved by 
the cooperation of many botanists using this same Linnean method 
of micrography. 
Therefore we try to avail ourselves of every opportunity offered, 
to show the value of our method in obtaining results, vainly aimed 
at otherwise. 
Thus some time ago we studied the wood of Cytisus Adami and 
its two components CL Laburnum and C. purpureus*) and were able 
to show that the wood of C. Adami is that of Laburnum, very 
siightly altered, it is true, but by no means in a direction tending 
to the structure of the wood of C. purpureus. This result could in 
dhe main have been anticipated from the splendid work of WINKLER 
and Baur on this subject and in so far may not be accounted very 
interesting. But it was valuable as a testimony for the usefulness 
of our method, because several other botanists had tried in vain to 
identify this wood. 
1) Alph. De Candolle. La Phytographie végétale. 
2) Recueil d. trav. bot. Néerl. Vol. VIII[- 1911. 333, 
