DEPARTMENT XIII BIOLOGY 



(Hall 2, September 20, 11.15 a. w.) 



CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR WILLIAM G. FARLOW, Harvard University. 

 SPEAKERS: PROFESSOR JOHN M. COULTER, University of Chicago. 

 PROFESSOR JACQUES LOEB, University of California. 



DEVELOPMENT OF MORPHOLOGICAL CONCEPTIONS 



BY JOHN MERLE COULTER 



[John Merle Coulter, Head of the Department of Botany, University of Chicago, 

 Chicago, Illinois, b. November 20, 1851, Ningpo, China. A.B. Hanover Col- 

 lege, 1870; A.M. ibid. 1873; Ph.D. Indiana University, 1890. Botanist, Hayden 

 Survey, 1872-74; Professor of Natural Science, Hanover College (Ind.) 1874- 

 89; Professor at Wabash College (Ind.) 1889-91; President of Indiana Uni- 

 versity, 1891-93; President, Lake Forest University (111.) 1893-96; Head of 

 the Department of Botany, University of Chicago, 1896. Member, Fellow, 

 American Association for the Advancement of Science; Botanical Society of 

 America; Associate Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Science; Academic 

 Internationale de G6ographie Botanique. Author of Synopsis of the Flora of 

 Colorado; Manual of the Botany of the Rocky Mountain Region; Handbook of 

 Plant Dissection; Revision of North American Umbelliferce; Manual of the Bot- 

 any of the Northern United States; Botany of Western Texas; A Synopsis of 

 Mexican and Central American Umbelliferce ; Morphology of Gymnosperms ; 

 Morphology of Angiosperms; Plant Relations; Plant Structures; Plant Studies.] 



ANY outline of the progress of biology during the century com- 

 memorated by this Exposition that is compressed within a single 

 address must be either inadequate or must restrict itself to some 

 single point of view. The latter alternative must be the one chosen, 

 not only on account of the vastness of the material, but chiefly that 

 personal experience may give some value to the presentation. In 

 the present address, therefore, certain limitations become necessary, 

 and in this case they are very natural. 



In the first place, it would be presumptuous in me to include zo- 

 ology in any review of progress, for botanists, as a rule, are strictly 

 limited by their material, and have never confounded botany with 

 biology. It is true that such subjects as morphology and physiology 

 are not to be limited by any barrier that may be set up between 

 plants and animals, but it is also true that the material and literature 

 with which one is familiar do not often cross this barrier. At the same 

 time, I think it must be recognized that botany and zoology have 

 been mutually stimulating, every real advance in the one having 

 given an impetus to the other, and that, as a consequence, their 

 progress has been largely along parallel lines. Hence a review of any 



