256 MORPHOLOGY. 



this, the elementary portions of which do not correspond to any expan- 

 sion in the longitudinal direction. 



Literature, History, and Criticism. 



We possess few or even no general fundamental researches into the 

 history of development of axial structure. Most authors present merely 

 anatomical investigation of dead specimens. I refer here to the following 

 as the only important essays that I know of : 



J. J. P. Moldenhauer, Beitrage zur Anatomic der Pflanzen. Kiel, 1812. 

 An analysis of the stalk of Maize, masterly in every respect, considering 

 its time. 



H. Mohl, DePalmarum Structura. Monachi, 183L 



H. Mohl, Untersuchungen liber den Mittelstock von Tamus elephan- 

 tipes L. Tubingen, 1836. 



Unger, Ueber den Bau und das Wachsthum des Dikotyledonen- 

 Stammes. St. Petersburg, 1840. 



Unger, Beitrage zur Kentniss der parasitischen Pflanzen. Ann. des 

 Wiener Museum, vol. ii. 1841. 



Goppert, Ueber den Bau der Balanophoren, &c. Act. Acad. L. C. N. C. 

 vol. xviii. Suppl. 1841. 



Goppert, De Coniferarum Structura Anatomica. Breslau, 1841. (See 

 my review in the Neuen Jenaer Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1842, No. 15. 



Schleiden, Beitrage zur Anatomic der Cacteen. From the Mem. de 

 1'Acad. Imp. des Sc. de St. Petersbourg p. div. Sav. vi. ser. t. iv. (Leip- 

 sic, Engelmann, 1842). 



Miguel, Ueber den Bau der Melocacteen, Linnaea, Bd. 16. (1842), 

 p. 465. 



Harting, Bydrage tot de Anatomic der Cacteen (Tydschrifft voor na- 

 turlyke Geschiedeniss an Physiologic door van Hoeven en de Vriese, 

 Bd.IX. 1842). 



A. de Jussieu, Monographic des Malpighiacees. Paris, 1843. (Con- 

 tains excellent investigations on the structure of stems in climbing 

 plants.) 



Naudin, On the Rhizome of Narcissus Pseudonarcissus in the Ann. 

 des Sc. Nat. 1844. Ser. iii. t. i. Botanique, p. 162 176. 



V. Martins, Ueber den Structur des Palmenstammes, Miinchn. gel. 

 Anz. 1845. 



Many isolated notices, not connected or compared according to any 

 leading principle, are to be found in Meyen (Physiologie), Bischoff 

 (Botanik) ; and in Treviranus (Physiologic), especial abundance of the 

 literature of the subject. 



Almost all that has been said by isolated authors is wholly useless, 

 either because they have had no regard to the history of development, or, 

 if they have noticed this, have spoken so indiscriminately of growth, 

 increase and enlargement, without distinguishing whether new cells have 

 originated, cells already existing expanded, or merely become trans- 

 formed into different tissues by the alteration of the form and configura- 

 tion of their walls. 



Two notions there are especially which have long sadly confused our 

 science, from which a correct method would have completely saved us, 

 since both were, at least at the time, and in the species on which they 

 were built up, wholly unfounded fables, having no connection with any 

 guiding principles, and consequently never should have assumed scientific 



