532 REVIEWS. l^ay, 



the augmentation of a stamen in the Crucifers. Also of the vice 

 versa process in the Labiat(B, where one stamen is usually de- 

 ficient, and sometimes three. The doctrine is frequently re- 

 ceived with considerable reluctance, and sometimes with unmis- 

 takable tokens of unbelief. 



Morphology does not now present so glaring absurdities as 

 passed current among its votaries in the earlier stages of its pro- 

 gress towards maturity. We hear no more about the identity of 

 a grain of wheat and a single leaf in a state of degeneration. 

 "What would be the consequence if this so-called degeneration 

 were to cease? That we should have no bread, nor biscuits 

 either. 



The extreme views of the original modern propounders of the 

 principles of morphology are now somewhat modified, if their lan- 

 guage be taken as the exponent of their opinions. They have pro- 

 bably abandoned their theory that the carpels, seeds, ovules, etc., 

 were originally leaves. For this concession to popular opinion, the 

 less scientific part of mankind should be grateful. But there is 

 another class of inquirers who will persist in giving utterance to 

 the ancient query, Cui bono ? This is an eminently practical and 

 utilitarian age ; and those who propound novelties, either simple 

 or complex, abstruse or obvious, should be able to tell us what 

 we may expect to gain by the adoption of their discoveries. 



Physiological investigations must of necessity always dip deeper 

 and soar higher than common observations. They must descend 

 below the surface, and sometimes they may be excused if they 

 take a flight into the airy regions of generalization and hypothe- 

 sis. But it is certain that they should never contradict experi- 

 ence and common sense. The change or suppression or duplica- 

 tion of hypothetic or only possible organs is too transcendental a 

 subject for the comprehension of ordinary minds. It cannot pos- 

 sibly engage much of their concern, interest, or sympathy. 



Besides this, the science of morphology, as expounded by its 

 professors, appears to offer only minute advantages, either to the 

 systematic or to the descriptive or utilitarian students of vegeta- 

 tion. Perhaps these unbelievers in the potentiality of the new 

 doctrines look at them through the wrong end of the telescopic 

 tube; but what the most learned of its advocates advance in its 

 behalf does not help to solve many practical difficulties. The 

 morphologists indeed profess to explain certain anomalies in the 



