1895. | Development of Botany in Germany. 195 
least loss in value, was put somewhat into the background 
in 1877, when the ‘‘Vergleichende Anatomie”of A. DE BARY (at 
Freiburg, Halle, Strassburg, died in 1888), appeared. This 
book codified and extended our knowledge of plant anatomy, 
and established a nomenclature of the tissues which still holds 
good. The anatomical work of L. Kny (of Berlin), E. 
STRASBURGER (of Jena, now in Bonn), and H.SCHENCK (docent 
in Bonn) followed essentially the same direction. 
Many celebrated investigators in other lands took part in 
the development of morphological phytotomy, but it is not 
for me to describe their labors here, since this can be a his- 
torical survey of the work of the German universities only, 
especially those of the German Empire. This limitation will 
naturally cause the sketch here presented to be very incom- 
plete, and may even make it appear as though credit were given 
to the investigators at German institutions of learning for work 
in which they were merely participants with others. This 
possible reproach must be met by the frank acknowledgment 
of the limitations here necessary. 
In contradistinction to that form of anatomy in which com- 
parative morphological and, of late, in conseqence especially 
of Strasburger’s work, phylogenetic characters were consid- 
ered the essentials in estimating the importance of the tis- 
Sues, there developed in the seventies the so-called physio- 
logical-anatomy. This new direction was given to the 
subject by SCHWENDENER (of Tiibingen, now of Berlin) in his 
book ‘‘Das mechanische Princip im anatomischen Bau der 
Monocotylen,” which was published in 1874. Schwendener’s 
pupils work along this line, and the most talented of these, 
G. HABERLANDT (of Graz), attempted in 1884 to give a com- 
Plete outline of physiological plant-anatomy.! Physiologi- 
cal plant-anatomy is a part of physiology, and as such it has 
led to conspicuous achievements. It has brought confusion 
into anatomy only in so far as it has attempted to establish 
its conceptions in the place of strictly morphological ones. 
THEODOR Har TIG (Berlin, Brunswick, died in 1880), whose 
peculiar terminology rendered an understanding of his con- 
ceptions so difficult that they were often less regarded than 
they deserved, went his own way in the study of anatomy, 
though following essentially the morphological direction. 
Indeed, Th. Hartig was a keen observer, and many a dis- 
covery since made can be pointed out in his writings as a 
fact already known to him. 
‘ethan emeniseeerneiitinascispn-emmnss 
*Physiologische Pfanzenanatomie. Leipzig, 1884.—G. I. P. 
