312 PROCEEDINGS OF THE OHIO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 



provided that food relations, functioning, or pathologic effects 

 are quite distinct. However, a double practice further com- 

 plicates the species problem ; and it would seem better to adhere 

 strictly to the morphological conception and regard the physio- 

 logically distinct forms incipient stages in the evolution of 

 species. 



Nomenclature, citation, and synonomy have become great 

 burdens, especially in groups of plants long studied. Codes have 

 multiplied without bringing uniformity or stability. Possibly 

 these ends may be attained when we have reached an agreement 

 regarding what constitutes a species and when many plants have 

 been studied according to this standard ; but no legislation can 

 bring final results while the species problem is unsolved and ovir 

 flora is poorly known. The ])roblems of nomenclature must be 

 left partly to individual judgment, for serious students will 

 exercise discrimination, regardless of any legislation, however 

 conscientiously and carefully done. 



Some botanists think of taxonomy as merely the art of pigeon- 

 holing species in a system constructed for the purpose of tracing 

 them. More broadly considered, this branch of botany is a 

 science which overlaps phytogeny and is intimately related to 

 morphology, physiology, ecology, and evolution. In its larger 

 aspects and in its final object of defining and arranging species, 

 taxonomy contains much that is fundamental; and thoughtful 

 botanists are interested in placing the science on a basis which 

 may render it helpful to all workers. There is need of systematic 

 study of our whole flora by some acceptable method, and the 

 best thought of botanists is needed in order that this end may 

 be accomplished. 



MORPHOLOGY. 



In 1880. plant morphology had barely appeared in America. 

 Within the last two decades, the subject has reached vast pro- 

 portions. Beginning with the morphology of mature structures, 

 we have passed to that of the developing organ, to cytology, and 

 to experimental morphology. In the construction of schemes of 

 phylogeny. morphologists were first concerned chiefly with re- 

 productive structures ; but with the adxent of modern ideas of 



