36 



NATURE 



{May 9, 1878 



they did little more. Like good and true men they did the 

 best they could with the materials within their reach. 

 They found various dissimilar fragments of apparently 

 distinct forms of fossil plants which they named, figured, 

 and described. They thus introduced a certain degree of 

 order and definiteness into what had hitherto been a 

 rudis indigestaque moles. This work benefited not 

 only contemporaiy but succeeding races of geologists. 

 Such labours as these are the necessary preliminaries to 

 the more exact determinations of more advanced science- 

 Work like this has to be done in the early stages of every 

 branch of natural science, and no great harm arises 

 from the multiplication of genera and species, if we only 

 keep in mind the fact that such nomenclature is but 

 provisional; — a mere ticketing of special forms for 

 convenience of future reference. The names do not 

 indicate very much more than the fancy designations 

 given to various "makes" of cloth in a Manchester 

 warehouse — i.e. convenient terms by which the business 

 transactions of buyer and seller are facilitated. Mischief 

 only arises from this essential method when we make 

 these provisional nomenclatures the basis of ambitious 

 philosophical speculations ; when, for example, because 

 a plant is designated by the name of Palmacites, we con- 

 clude that Palms flourished in the carboniferous age. 

 Keeping in mind the true use of a provisional nomen- 

 clature we find it indispensable to further progress. When 

 some inquirer, more advanced than his predecessors, 

 demonstrates that Sigillaria A and Sigillaria B are 

 merely the upper and lower parts of a common stem, it is 

 useful to him to be able to indicate by his terms A and B 

 what the types are that bear this mutual relationship. 



The scientific worthlessness of very many of the 

 generic and specific definitions and names of fossil plants 

 is now becoming obvious to all advanced students of 

 Fossil Botany. Yet the assignment of these names and 

 definitions to such fragments as fell in their way is the 

 chief result of the publication of the "Fossil Flora." 

 To the philosophy of the study its authors added very 

 ittle. They left the supposed relations of the great types 

 of vegetation t© each other pretty much where they found 

 them. They seem to have accepted equally what was 

 true and what was false in the philosophy of Adolphe 

 Brongniart. No one important discovery will be handed 

 down to the future associated with their names. Frag- 

 ments from various parts of the same plant took rank at 

 their hands as independent species. Little or>o attempt 

 was made for variations due to age and conditions of 

 growth. Nor were they to be blamed for this. We are 

 still to some extent in the same predicament — only, 

 thanks to the warnings of Sir Joseph Hooker and others, 

 we now know what we have to aim at. We have to try 

 to accomplish for plants what Burmeister did for the 

 Trilobites. But if the use of merely provisional names 

 is to be continued, it is very desirable that we should 

 possess some means of distinguishing between such a 

 nomenclature, and one that represents philosophic truths 

 and may be employed as the basis and instrument of 

 philosophical speculations. Nothing of the kind has yet 

 been attempted beyond the "incerta sedes " of Brong- 

 niart. Yet I think it would not be difificult to invent some 

 technical sign that would answer this end. For the 

 present it can only be left to the judgment of each indi- | 



vidual observer to determine what names are of scientific 

 value and what are not. 



But the most essential truth which these later days are 

 teaching us is the importance of the study of internal 

 organisation ; and especially of that of the reproductive 

 structures, if fossil botany is to take its proper rank as a 

 definite science. Nothing can be more dangerous than a 

 reliance upon mere resemblances or differences of ex- 

 ternal form. We have a ready illustration of this in the 

 numerous verticillate-leaved plants of the Carboniferous 

 beds. So far as mere external forms are concerned, 

 Calamites, Asterophyllites, Sphenophylla, and Annularize, 

 with a host of less known modifications, bear a close 

 resemblance to each other — and if a few Galium s, As- 

 perulas, and other similar living exogenous forms could 

 have been thrown in amongst them they would probably 

 have been equally undistinguishable from the rest. The 

 result is that the nomenclature and classification of these 

 Carboniferous plants is in hopeless confusion. True, we 

 are slowly emerging from this chaos, because we are 

 learning to distinguish some of these forms from the 

 rest through their widely differing features of internal 

 organisation — and every fresh plant in which we do so 

 diminishes the bulk of the chaotic mass that still needs 

 reduction to order. Though so much has already been 

 done in this way, we are yet only on the threshold of the 

 study. At the same time we are moving in the right 

 direction. Such localities as Autun, St. Etienne, Oldham, 

 and Halifax have furnished, and are likely further to 

 furnish, important materials — each locality having revealed 

 characteristic forms of vegetation peculiar to it, mixed 

 with other forms common to all the localities. It is to 

 be hoped that other similar storehouses will be opened 

 out, revealing fresh forms of structural organisation, 

 since it is upon organisation alone that a sound classifi- 

 cation of fossil plants can be based. 



The recent republication of the "Fossil Flora" is 

 almost an exact fac-simile of the original work — even to 

 its title-page. Copies of the old edition being rarely 

 obtainable this re-issue will be valuable to a large number 

 of young geologists. At the same time it is desirable 

 that something should be done to distinguish between 

 statements still to be relied upon, and such as represent 

 now exploded errors. This might have been done by the 

 introduction of editorial notes — ^but instead of this, its 

 accomplished editor, Mr. William Carruthers, is about to 

 issue a supplementary volume, giving the existing state of 

 our knowledge of many of the objects represented in the 

 original work. This may well be expected to constitute 

 a valuable addition to the volumes already issued. 



The second publication named at the head of this 

 notice has an affiliated relationship to the " Fossil Flora." 

 When Hutton died he left behind him numerous drawings 

 of fossil plants, obviously prepared for publication, many 

 of them having connected with them manuscript annota- 

 tions of various kinds. A selection from these has been 

 published in an elegant volume issued under the auspices 

 of the North of England Institute of Mining and 

 Mechanical Engineers. It is obvious that many of these 

 drawings represent plants of more doubtful nature than 

 the majority of those published in the " Fossil Flora.'* 

 It might be expected that the more definite types would 

 be first selected for publication. But this is precisely 



