3 1 2 MORPHOLOGY. 



corresponds to the axillary bud of the preceding (the petal), and no at- 

 tempt is made to elucidate how it happens that the axillary bud of the 

 calyx appears only as one leaf (petal), and yet developes its axillary bud 

 at once, which again is stunted to a single leaf; finally, the usual al- 

 ternate position of the floral parts, directly contradicting the whole fiction, 

 is not entered into at all. 



C. Fr. Wolff (Theoria Generations, 1764) opened the true and only 

 path by which this doctrine can be carried through, in making good the 

 study of development as the true principle in Botany, as in other sci- 

 ences. He erred, certainly, in particular conclusions ; for instance, in 

 determining the stamens to be modified axillary buds of the petals. But 

 all his intelligent activity remained altogether lost to Botany, a fact 

 readily explained by the scientific spirit of those days. * 



Long after Wolff, Goethe wrote his " Versuch, die Metamorphose der 

 Pflanzen zu erklaren," (Gotha, 1790), in which he correctly explained 

 most of the floral parts, up to the carpellary leaves, as foliar -organs. 

 With his method of mere comparisons and references to monstrosities, 

 he could not, of course, pronounce any thing original and profound as to 

 the structure of the germen. There he introduced, from Schelling's 

 doctrines, the fantastic comparison with an alternating contraction and 

 expansion, from which, in connection with a gradual refinement, pro- 

 ceeded the difference of the parts of the flower. This last was soon 

 dropped. Goethe found little hearing at first in Botany, especially in 

 Germany where the very stupidest materialism of the Linnsean school 

 prevailed ; Jussieu and listen first mentioned his ideas in scientific Bo- 

 tany. But it was DeCandolle (Organographie, Paris, 1827) who first 

 called general attention to this branch (or rather main trunk) of Botany, 

 and thus the so-called metamorphosis of plants gradually came to its 

 place as a special chapter in the revision of the science. Wolff's ideas 

 were not indicated by a single syllable, at most he was cited with philo- 

 logical profundity as Goethe's predecessor, and thus the whole doctrine, 

 in the absence of the only correct method, remained without any essen- 

 tial influence for the advancement of Botany. As to the import of 

 calyx, corolla, stamen, and carpel as foliar organs all, except a few 

 heretics, were soon agreed. The seed-buds (ovules) were left to origi- 

 nate as buds on the borders of the carpellary leaves, and no great trouble 

 was taken about the thousand contradictions which lay close at hand. 

 The particular families, more complicated in their structure, the pistils 

 of which could not so readily be referred to carpellary leaves, &c., then 



* Even now but few botanists have an idea of the importance of the history of 

 development ; and while animal physiology progresses with wonderful rapidity through 

 the constant application of the correct method while in it every rising difference of 

 opinion soon becomes obliterated, because the principle, as to the correctness of which 

 all are agreed, the skill in manipulation, which every one must acquire as an indispen- 

 sable preparation for profound study, causes every question to be quickly and univer- 

 sally decided Botany remains hopelessly behind all the sciences. Endless contests 

 about the commonest things consume the best time, and the science moves not ; because 

 most botanists either place side by side, as of equal value, or make selections from, 

 without judgment (and take therefore, according to accident, sometimes untruth, some- 

 times truth), all that is given them by the few inquirers who have taken a higher path. 

 As to critical re-investigation, it is not to be thought of by most. The most important 

 organ in Phanerogamous plants is the anther : how many botanists are there who know 

 the structure of an anther perfectly from their own experience? Hence we find in the 

 books of botanists of the greatest reputation, things stated about the anthers which 

 truly are not a whit better than if J. Miiller were to describe the human lungs as 

 simple sacs. 



