184 
each other. In a similar way, the term “ development ” is frequently used to 
express almost anything in the world except that which, grammatically or 
logically, is meant by that word. But when we come to consider the ques- 
tion of development, with reference to what is commonly assumed to be the 
case—namely, that the differentiations of nature have taken place by a slow 
and gradual process continually going on at approximately the same rate, 
investigations such as those which have been conducted by Mr. J ames 
become invaluable as arguments for or against the evolution theory. The 
whole study of botany is most fascinating, and one cannot but wish that 
Mr. James had had time to have worked out some of the points he has 
touched upon more fully than he has been able to do within the limits of 
this paper. I may just allude to one feature which to me is very striking 
in the study of botany, and that is, the amazing development of structure 
evidenced in some of the elementary forms of plant life. A good many 
people know a mushroom when they see it; but how many are there who 
know anything of the life-history of that plant? Its apparently simple - 
structure and spontaneous growth are familiar to all of us; but how many 
have the least knowledge of the elaboration of structure or the extraordinary 
complexity of the stages of development through which it goes? In a 
vague kind of way, we know something about a certain object which goes by 
the name of mushroom spawn; but very few of us know anything of the 
real bearings of that spawn on the developed plant, or of the different phases, 
through which it has had to pass. And, if this be true in regard to so simple 
a form of plant life, with how much greater force does it apply to the more 
elaborate forms? I may say, also, that the fact which Mr. James has 
pointed out, that the extremely complex processes of reproduction 
which are noticed in plant life at the present day are to be found 
presenting exactly the same characteristics in the earliest forms of the great 
divisions of the natural orders of plants, as shown in the very earliest 
appearances they evidence in the record of the rocks, is one which it behoves 
those who believe in the theory of regular evolution to explain, before they 
call upon us to assume that that theory is proved. (Applause.) Here, in 
the plant world, we have not merely the great divisions of nature just as 
widely separated in the earliest appearances found in fossil remains as they 
are at the present time, and with no intermediate links, but we find special 
genera, just as distinct from the other genera as their descendants or pre- 
sent representatives are from the different genera which are nowadays found 
on the earth. For instance, we cannot for a moment doubt, when we 
regard the first appearance afforded us of the tulip-tree, that in it We recog- 
nise the same tulip-tree as now exists, just as we also recognise in the stu- 
pendous lizards of the past the same type of lizards we see now. No one 
doubts that the creatures whose fossil remains we find were lizards. Even 
the uncultivated countryman, or those not so learned as the countryman in 
objects of natural history, would recognise the essential characteristics of 
the early tulip-tree. Do any of us who grow roses know how impossible it 
is to classify roses? In this case we have a singularly plastic genus, 
