6 BIOLOGY 



of their development and of "life-histories," and the earliest stages of 

 gametophyte and sporophyte and reproductive organs were scrutin- 

 ized and recorded in the greatest detail in the search for relationships. 

 Shifting its centre of gravity from the mature organ to the nascent 

 organ, morphology departed very far from special taxonomy, while at 

 the same time it was laying the solid foundation for general taxonomy. 

 The reversal of old ideas was conspicuous, and much of the old ter- 

 minology was found to be false in suggestion and almost impossible to 

 shake off. For example, it has been a constant surprise to me to see 

 the persistent use of a sex terminology in connection with flowers by 

 those who must know better, and who must know also that they are 

 helping to perpetuate a radical misconception. 



A still more important result of this change of front in the mor- 

 phological attack was the necessary reversal of the method of inter- 

 pretation. No longer was the flower of highly organized angiosperms 

 read down into the structures of the lower groups; but from the sim- 

 plest beginnings structures were traced through increasing complex- 

 ity and seen to end in the flower, explaining what it is. This meant 

 that evolution had replaced the old idea of types and metamorphosis, 

 and was building facts into a structure rather than cataloguing them. 

 This spirit of modern morphology has not as yet dominated instruc- 

 tion. Its facts are developed in all their detail, abundantly and skill- 

 fully, but very seldom do the facts seem to be coordinated. The old 

 spirit of accumulating unrelated material still dominates teaching, and 

 crams the memory without developing permanent tissue. 



The detailed developmental study of plants and their organs gave 

 rise to what has been called morphological cytology, but it is an un- 

 fortunate differentiation, for cytology merely pushes the search for 

 structure to the limits of technique. It is becoming more and more 

 clear that every morphologist must also be a cytologist; and certainly 

 every cytologist should be a morphologist; and there is no more reason 

 for differentiation on this basis than on the basis of objectives used. 



While fully recognizing the magnificent development of morpho- 

 logical knowledge that has resulted from this point of view, it is inter- 

 esting to note running all through it much of the rigidity of the older 

 morphology, leavened to a certain extent by the demands of evolution. 

 Certain definite morphological conceptions were established, and 

 organs were as rigidly outlined and defined as under the old regime. 

 For example, there were no more definite morphological conceptions 

 than sporangium, antheridium, and archegonium. Unconsciously, 

 perhaps, a type of each was selected, this time from their display in the 

 lower plant groups; and this type was read into the structure of higher 

 groups. The distinctly outlined antheridia and archegonia of bryo- 

 phytes were compelled to remain just as distinct of definition when 

 they become confused among surrounding tissues in the pterido- 



