MORIO. 



MORRHTJA. 



flowers, lore*, nd other part* of this plant are added to curries in 

 India. 



(Lindley rryttahte Kingdom.) 



MO'RIK, De Montfort's name for Cattidaria Kdtinophora. [K.vro- 



MOROMATA.] 



MORMON, Dliger's name for a genus of Alcadtc (Fraterculn of 

 Brtaeo). [Ac*.] 



MORMOPS. [CnwiioiTKRA.] 



MOROXITE. a Mineral, a variety of Phosphate of Lime. [APATITE. 



MORPHNOa [FALCOXIBJB.] 



MORPHOLOGY is that branch of science which treat* of the 

 laws which regulate the forma assumed by Plantsand Animals. Wlien 

 this term was originally introduced into natural history science, its 

 application wan confined to the explanation of the changes which 

 occur in the convention of the leaves into the parts of the flower in 

 plants. It is now however generally recognised as the science of form 

 in the organic kingdoms. Schleiden, in his ' Principle* of Scientific 

 Botany,' treats of what is usually called the structure of plants, under 

 two heads, that is General and Special Morphology. The following arc 

 his definition and remarks upon this subject : 



" Morphology is the study of the forms of plants, and of tlieir 

 several parts. It is divisible into a general branch, which elucidates 

 all that has reference to plants and their organs in general, and a 

 special branch, which treats of plants according to their principal 

 groups, as well as their individual organs ; and this latter branch 

 again is separable into two parallel sections, namely, the delineation 

 of external form, and the delineation of internal structure, or of the 

 peculiar composition of plant* and their parts from various tissues. 



" In my methodological introduction I have endeavoured to show 

 that the external morphology of plants is really tlie most important 

 section of botany. A mere glance at the history of the science will 

 convince any one of the trutd of this view, for it is truly wonderful 

 to observe how far it has succeeded, to the almost entire neglect of all 

 other scientific knowledge, in taking possession of the materials by 

 merely examining its exterior, and arranging it in such a manner that 

 the systems which in recent times have taken another path I allude 

 to the anatomico-physiological have scarcely effected more than the 

 introduction of extremely trifling changes, in some instances clearly 

 untenable, and others at best of very doubtful validity. The morpho- 

 logical method of observation has certainly, from the origin of the 

 science, been the basis of all treatises on botany : but those who have 

 thus pursued it have been far from taking a strictly scientific view of 

 the question, or seeking in this way for the solution of its difficulties. 

 This task is two-fold, at once empirical and theoretical. In its first 

 character the study requires us to examine into and characterise the 

 fundamental forms which, as types, or conceptions of generic and spe- 

 cific shapes, constitute the boiis of individual forms. In its second 

 character this study has to unfold the natural laws according to which 

 these types are formed, and which control and explain the deviations 

 that occur in individual forms from their prototypes. For the first 

 or empirical part of our researches, we may congratulate ourselves on 

 having nome little information, although of a very fragmentary nature; 

 but in the second or theoretical department we have scarcely even an 

 indication to guide us. That the solution of the difficulties must be 

 sought by beginning from the simplest case is evident, and hereSchwann 

 has certainly shown eminent acuteness in establishing the analogy 

 between the formation of crystals and that of cells; but unfortunately 

 we have not yet brought the law of crystalline formation into the 

 dominion of science. Thus at the present time we can do no more 

 than specify the problem presented to botany, the solution of which 

 is alone to be expected when the mathematical construction of the 

 formation of crystals lies perfectly complete before us. If however 

 this is ever to be effected, we must enter upon all possible construction 

 in a very different way from what has hitherto been done. For this 

 purpose we must consider somewhat more exactly the characteristics 

 of organic form, especially the vegetable, as opposed to the inorganic. 

 The inorganic form, the crystal, is permanent when once formed ; it 

 is unchangeable ; the individual (thu individual existence) is the form 

 iUelf, and by its solution and change of form a new individual arises. 

 In the plant, on the other hand, the form is not stable or permanent, 

 but an ever-changing one. The analogies between the two hold good 

 only in the simplest cases. The nucleus of a crystal originates in a 

 definite form, and then passes through a series of forms, until it reaches 

 the <lediiced crynUlline form. As such it then remains unchangeable 

 until the individual is destroyed with the form. Thus certainly it has 

 a very simple hirtory of development, but thia continues merely so long 

 as something in still being added to that which is already present, until 

 the whole is completed. The cell is formed in a manner somewhat 

 analogous to thin, originating in a definite form, and passing through a 

 series of changes, which, as it appears, only contribute new matter 

 until the form is complete : this then remains stationary until its solu- 

 tion and the consequent destruction of it individuality. It is however 

 wholly different in combined forms, and these it is which, with few 

 exception", compose what we term plants. Here a numberof cells com- 

 bine together within definite external limits ; but these cells themselves 

 do not enter into the form as dead particle* of the mass; they continue 

 to devetop new cells, whilst the old ones are partially destroyed : the 

 wwly originated cells change, by their arrangement, the form of the 



whole, and, since formation of new parts and destruction of the old are 

 continually going on, the general boundary of the whole never appear* as 

 anything definitely fixed. As, however, this metamorphosis is constant 

 in its nature, and only occurs in individual parts, we cannot regard 

 each one of the forms resulting from this process as a new one, but 

 merely as a slight modification of the one immediately preceding it ; 

 and this peculiar connection brings the whole to us as one individual, 

 which, at its first appearance, may be entirely different in all its parti, 

 both in shape and material, from wiiat it is at last ; but in the con- 

 ception of which we must comprehend the whole series of changing 

 forms, wherein the widely distant members have perhaps no element 

 identical, if we would attain to scientific knowledge, if we would 

 understand the object, and not merely acquire a disjointed, uncoin- 

 prehended, and incomprehensible impression. From these considera- 

 tions it follows, granting the paramount importance of the morphological 

 method of observation, that we gain nothing by the comprehension 

 of the forms complete at any one moment, but that we must trace 

 out the law of morphological development, and direct our scientific 

 inquiries, not to an individual complete at any one period, but to the 

 comprehension of the collective constant series of normally changing 

 forms. The conception of genera and species in botany is conse- 

 quently, therefore, not merely the result of a comparison but also of 

 a connection of the various individual characteristics with each other. 

 In this manner we should lay a firm foundation for the induction* 

 to load us to a theory of organic morphology, if we could but succeed 

 in completing the theory of the formation of inorganic forms. As 

 yet we are far from this point, and simply because it is only in th.' 

 most recent times, and yet very imperfectly, that the importance of 

 the study of the history of development has been auknowl. 

 although, without tbi, botany would be whoUy diverted of all 

 scientific principle. This deficiency renders it impossible as yet to 

 treat morphology with scientific logical development, or in accordance 

 with a perfectly Rystcmatic mode of arrangement, as will but too 

 obviously appear in my manner of treating tliis subject, although the 

 blame of this is only partially to be imputed to me. It seema how. v, i- 

 practicable perfectly to state the problem, and to this end I .<ul>i"in 

 the following remarks : 



" We have to construct the laws of morphological formation, and to 

 delineate the forms themselves. The first remains for the present a 

 mere problem, the solution of which must be reserved for succeeding 

 times. The second may be accomplished, although impertV.tly. I 

 say imperfectly, because, instead of those complete series of de\vlo|>- 

 ment of which we ought alone to treat, we only know a few individual 

 conditions ; and therefore the greatest portion of the task still lies 

 unperformed before us. Here we must again distinguish between 



1. Series of forms which occur in all or in very many plants of a very 

 different nature, and may therefore especially serve as the foundation 

 of the study of vegetable forms; that is. General Morphology. 



2. Series of forms which are only peculiar to definite groups of plants : 

 Special or Comparative Morphology. These two wouM furlur 

 branch off into the consideration of form without reference to its c im- 

 position from the different forms of the elementary organs : External 

 Morphology ; and into the consideration of the manner in which forms 

 are composed from individual tissues : Internal Morphology (the 

 theory of structure 'Comparative Anatomy'). This last part falls 

 however away from General Morphology : for all that we can, for the 

 present at least, say is, that every plant is composed of the different 

 forms of the elementary organs which have already been treated of. 

 Even with respect to the second part, in regard to Comparative 

 Morphology, it appears to me unadvisable to divide the two sections, 

 on account of our deficiency of material; I shall, therefore, in ill. 

 examination of the individual groups and part* of plants, subjoin all 

 that i known concerning their structure." 



In thU work, in the description of the organs of plants, the plan of 

 Schleiden has been followed, and the morphology of the separate 

 organs of plants will be found under the head of each organ. Illus- 

 .rations of the general laws of morphology will also be found undur 

 the heads of MKTAiionrnosis, MONSTER, and UNITY or ORGANISATION. 



In the same manner the laws of morphology, as far as they ore yet 

 mderstood in the Animal Kingdom, will be found referred to in the 

 descriptions of the great families, and in the articles MOI.I.CSCA aud 



row. 



MO'KKHUA, a genus of Fishes of the order Malacoptcrygii and 

 flection Hulibrac/tiala. The Common Cod-Fish may bo regarded a* tho 

 type of this genus, which also contains tho Haddock and several other 

 species, all of which have the ventral fins pointed, and situated under 

 or rut her in advance of tho pectorals; three dorsal fins, two anal fins, 

 mil the chill furnished with a barhule. 



M. vulgarit, Cuv. (fiailiu iforrhua, Linn.), tho Common C<xl, is 

 usually about three feet in length, but sometimes attains a much larger 

 ize, and weighs from 00 to "Olbs. Tho upper parts of the head and 

 >ody are of an olive-brown colour, mottled with yellowish ; the under 

 >arts and the lateral lines are white, and the fins are dusky. The 

 >roportions of a specimen three feet in length are as follows : The 

 ength of the head compared with that of the body (not including the 

 ail-fin) i* as one to two and a half; the depth of tho body is equal to 

 he length of the head ; the first dorsal fin commences in a vertical 

 ino just behind the origin of tho pectorals; the second dorsal 



