GENERAL MORPHOLOGY. 129 



quandrangularis (d\ &c. The forms of surfaces are never enclosed 

 by exactly straight lines, but are mostly bounded by curves, and, 

 in accordance with these, are either rotundus (e), ovalus (f), &c. 

 Lastly, the forms of solids are designated according to their resem- 



blance to stereometric figures (fig. 1 1 1 . ), as 



conicus (z), &c. ; or according to incidental resemblances to known 



objects, as acinaciforme (Ji), dolabriforme (/), mammillaris, &c. 



It cannot be my object to give here the whole of this terminology, 

 which is in. part so very superfluously diffuse, and yet in many respects 

 most inappropriate. I would merely indicate the method in which these 

 expressions have been sought for, and the point of view from which they 

 must be explained. No one can deny that it is absolutely disgusting to 

 read in botanical works, for instance, that a leaf may be flat and oval, 

 or lanceolate or linear, and likewise thick and fleshy ; and then again 

 with reference to the stem, that it may also be thick and fleshy, or flat 

 and oval, or lanceolate, or linear ; and, finally, the same rigmarole 

 repeated about the petals, anthers, and a hundred other parts, by which 

 the time of the scholar is most lamentably wasted. These general 

 adjective technical expressions are not peculiar to Botany, but belong to 

 the natural sciences in general ; they properly constitute a special study, 

 the scientific theory of observation, which Illiger* made an attempt, 

 although an unsuccessful one, to systematise.. Since then the subject has 

 remained untouched. The more recent theories of the schools have, 

 however, seriously endeavoured to educate boys gradually into sensible 

 beings, with open eyes and senses ; whilst philology seemed in former 

 days to have trained men to little better than mere bock-worms, and spoiled 

 them for all sound and clear comprehension by observation ; whence have 

 come into our science so many useless wildernesses of words, and so little 

 simplicity and correctness of observation. By way of reference for all 

 these useless, and in some degree foolish, designations, I would recom- 

 mend Bischoif's t little hand-book of botanical technical terms, as the- 

 simplest and most concise. I shall here, and in my subsequent descrip- 

 tions, only indicate the correct arrangement of the technical terms 

 according to the roots of their meanings, and limit myself as much as 

 possible to the use of such as designate something peculiarly botanical. 

 I would here remark, however, that we soon find our stock of accurately- 

 defining mathematical expressions exhausted, and that we have then no 

 alternative left but to use figurative terms; and here the fate of the art 

 of scientific description depends upon the greater or lesser skill of the 

 individual. The main cause of the great deficiency that characterises 

 our terminology for the natural sciences, has arisen from heedlessness in 



* J. K. W. Illiger's Versucli einer systematischen, vollstandigen Terminologie fiir 

 das Thier- und Pflanzenreich. Helmstadt, 1808. 



f Bischoff, Lehrbuch der Botanik. Appendix. Stuttgart, 1839. 



