EDITORIAL. 
It 1s probably true that never in the history of botany has the de- 
rapidly to classify. This state of affairs has brought upon us a period 
of hasty and broad generalization that is to be deplored. The only 
useful function of generalization is to suggest lines of further inquiry, 
and broad generalization is never so much out of place as when facts 
are coming in rapidly. It seems impossible now to write a book upon 
any general subject in botany which is not antiquated in some parts 
before it reaches our shelves. Especially is this true in reference to 
feneralizations concerning phylogeny. Treub’s discovery of the so- 
called chalazal entrance of the pollen-tube in Casuarina no sooner 
lays the foundation of a reconstructed scheme of classification, cur- 
rent long enough to be followed in other publications, than two other 
observers announce the same condition of things in Amentifere. The 
immense importance of the development and form of the archespor- 
ium is no sooner embalmed in books that have appeared and have 
been announced than Strasburger transfers the “developmental center 
of gravity” to the mother-cells, and opens up a vast field of new in- 
quiry in the numerical relations of chromosomes. The boundary line 
between gametophyte and sporophyte is no sooner well established in 
our texts and minds and generalizations, than it isshifted. Examples 
might be multiplied on every hand, and they serve to emphasize the 
point we intend to make, namely, that only such generalization as sug- 
gests further investigation is to be thought of at such a time as this, 
and that broad generalizations leading to extensive reconstruction of 
views are worse than useless. The record of facts, the stringing of 
these facts upon some consistent thread of theory, are now and always 
must be necessary, but the constant reconstruction of phylogenies is 
Surely as unprofitable as it may be misleading. 
** 
* 
IT Is IN ORDER for the resuscitators of Science (which we are glad to 
greet again), to rise and explain to the botanists whose support they 
Seek, why phanerogamic taxonomy only should be represented in the 
editorial committee while five specialists are considered necessary for 
Proper presentation of zoological matters. 
3—Vol. XX—No. 1, , 
[33] 
