464 



species, whether soine nearer ally of Aptiana than Eunju 

 acuminata could be found. If the reader does the same, he 

 will be led to Eurya japonica and E. glabra. Therefore we 

 think that the genus Eurya may safely be considered as a 

 most near ally of Aptiana, leaving it imdecided whether 

 both could be united with each other in the genus Eurya, 

 which however to us does not seem improbable. 



In conclusion we want to say some words on the work 

 of Mrs. S top es and on the character of the observations 

 made by- us. In the foreground must be placed the fact 

 that for the whole of our knowledge of Aptiana we are 

 indebted to the careful work of Mrs. S tope s. But we 

 can go farther and trust, that the reader will not hâve 

 mistaken our work for a criticism of Mrs. Stopes' paper. 

 If we had not indeed considered this paper as a very fair 

 spécimen of what at this time may be called good aria- 

 tomical work, we could not hâve written as we hâve done. 

 That bad work does not produce good results is a truth, 

 Vv-hich we by no means want to prove. We do not criticize 

 a spécial paper, but the method or rather the want of 

 method still prevailing in almost ail anatomical work 

 published at this day. And we think that we hâve shown how 

 a research on a very interesting subject, bringing to light a 

 most interesting palaeontological resuit and ably conducted, 

 might hâve brought us still nearer to the truth if the 

 Linnean method had been used in making the des"criptions. 



This method indeed asks much of the investigator's time 

 and energy and the use of it can only be learnt by patient 

 study. But we mean to say, that at some future time a 

 botanist of Mrs. Stopes' power will not be satisfied with 

 descriptions of anatomical structures made without the 

 use of the Linnean principles of micrography. 



Gkoningen, Oct. 21th 1912. 



