PROBLEMS OF PLANT MORPHOLOGY 83 



of descent has also reacted upon morphological research, to such an 

 extent, indeed, that it has been held that phylogenetic research is 

 to be regarded as the sole business of morphology. Thus, for ex- 

 ample, Scott has said: 



"The object of modern morphological botany is the accurate 

 comparison of plants, both living and extinct, with the object of tra- 

 cing their real relationships with one another, and thus of ultimately 

 constructing a genealogical tree of the vegetable kingdom. The prob- 

 lem is thus a purely historical one, and is perfectly distinct from any 

 of the questions with which physiology has to do. " * 



This position is certainly justified from the standpoint of the pale- 

 ontologist. For him, for whom nothing but dead material is at hand, 

 there remains nothing else to do than to make known, through careful 

 comparative study, the structure and relationships of those organ- 

 isms whose remains are available. This is a very important business. 

 The beautiful results of phytopaleontological research, such as have 

 been attained during the last decade in England and France, have 

 very materially furthered our knowledge of plant forms, and have 

 made to live again before our e} 7 es, in a most surprising manner, and 

 in the finest details of their structure, types long since vanished from 

 the surface of the earth. 



But does this limitation of morphology to the comparative phylo- 

 genetic method which is imposed upon the paleontologist exist also 

 for the morphological study of living plants? 



There are many of the opinion of Scott; and, indeed, a special 

 " phylogenetic method," which is said to be a characteristic of modern 

 morphology, has even been talked of. 2 



Were this the case, then the only difference between the morpho- 

 logy of the present and the earlier, idealistic morphology would consist 

 in this, that in the place of the general ideas with which this operates, 

 as, e. g., " type " " plan of organization," etc., there would be found 

 phylogenetic conceptions. Such general abstractions are, however, 



1 Address to the botanical section, British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science, Liverpool, 1896. 



2 Cf. Haeckel, Generate Morphologic, I, p. 50; Strasburger, Ueber die Bedeutung 

 phylogenetischer Methoden fur die Erforschung lebender Wesen, Jena, 1874; also 

 the criticism, pertinent according to my opinion, which Al. Braun made concerning 

 the setting forth of the phylogenetic method, in his treatise, Die Frage nach der 

 Gymnospermie der Cycadeen (Monatsber. der Berliner Akad., 1875). Al. Braun 

 rightly maintained that the theory of descent did not offer a new method, but was 

 really the result of earlier methods, and that the results of paleontology are far 

 too fragmentary for the construction of a phylogenetic tree of the organic king- 

 dom. This is yet true, thirty years' later, after we have attained a much more 

 exact knowledge of the organization of fossil plants through the important work 

 of Williamson, Scott, Oliver, Renault, and others. We have found, e. g. that the 

 group of cycadofilices possessed seeds. It has, however, not become possible to 

 derive a group of living plants from the cycadofilices directly. It has become 

 highly probable that these have sprung from fern-like ancestors; but from what 

 form it remains at this time entirely unknown. Concerning fossil plants see the 

 work of Scott, Studies in Fossil Botany. 



