DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANY SINCE 1818 457 



Physiology has been represented not only by the 

 studies which had been inaugurated and stimulated by the 

 Darwinian theory, such as the cross-fertilization and 

 the close-fertilization of plants, plant-movements, and 

 the like, but there have been a good many special com- 

 munications, such as Dandeno on toxicity, Plowman on 

 electrical relations, and ionization, and W. P. Wilson on 

 respiration. 



There are many broad philosophical questions which 

 have found an appropriate home in the Journal, such as 

 "The Plant-individual in its relation to the species'' 

 (Alexander Braun, 19, 297, 1855; 20, 181, 1855), 

 and "The analogy between the mode of reproduc- 

 tion in plants and the alternation of generations 

 observed in some radiata" (J.D.Dana, 10,341, 1850). 

 Akin to these are many of the reflections which one 

 finds scattered throughout the pages of the Journal, 

 frequently in minor book-notices. As might be expected, 

 some attention has been paid to the very special branch of 

 botany which is strictly called medical. For example, 

 early in its history, the Journal published a long treatise 

 by Dr. William Tully (2, 45, 1820), on the ergot of rye. 

 This is considered from a structural as well as from a 

 medical point of view and is decidedly ahead of the time 

 in which it was written. There are a few references to 

 vegetable poisons, and there is a fascinating account of 

 the effect of the common white ash on the activities of 

 the rattlesnake. In short it may be said that the editor 

 did much towards making the Journal readable as well 

 as strictly scientific. 



The list of reviewers who have been permitted to use 

 the pages of the Journal for notices of botanical and 

 allied books in recent years is pretty long. One finds the 

 initials of Wesley R. Coe, George P. Clinton, Arthur L. 

 Dean, Alexander W. Evans, William G. Farlow, George 

 L. Goodale, Arthur H. Graves, Herbert E. Gregory, 

 Lafayette B. Mendel, Leo F. Rettger, Benjamin L. Robin- 

 son, George R. Wieland, and others. 



At the present time, in the biological sciences, as in 

 every department of thought, there is great specialization, 

 and each specialty demands its own private organ of 



