250 
Hence the difficulty of criticising recent work. 
When once a conclusion of some importance has been 
formulated it may be tested by evidence drawn from 
other branches of research. Until that time criticism 
from outside is of little value. Those who are work- 
ing at the subject must, of course, form their own 
opinion on its possibilities, for each has to decide for 
himself whether he shall continue on those lines. 
The subject of seedling anatomy is no longer very 
new. It is too late now to debate on the a priori 
probability of ancestral characters surviving in the 
young seedling. No one doubts that a vascular stump 
sometimes persists after the organ it originally sup- 
plied has disappeared.'” Therefore there is no glaring 
improbability in the suggestion that the vascular 
skeleton of the young seedling may afford a clue to 
the structure of a remote ancestor. But this is only 
saying in other words that botanists are justified in 
giving the subject a fair trial. That trial is now 
proceeding. Some general conclusions have been for- 
mulated already, but they have not yet stood the test 
of time. In all probability the final judgment on this 
subject will be given by a future generation of 
botanists on evidence not as yet before us. In the 
meantime we shall all form our own opinien as to 
the prospects of the method. Speaking for myself, I 
think that it has already thrown much light on em- 
bryological problems, and is likely to throw more. 
At the end of this very short and imperfect sketch 
of the progress of botanical embryology in recent 
years, it is natural to look back and attempt to esti- 
mate the importance of the whoje subject and its 
relation to other branches of botanical science. I have 
treated it from the morphological side only, but clearly 
every department of botany must deal with the im- 
mature plant as well as with the adult form. For 
example, the struggle for existence between two 
species in any particular locality must be profoundly 
affected by the characters of their seedlings. If one 
species should gain a decided advantage over the other 
early in life, the vanquished species may never live to 
form seed, and may thus disappear from that neigh- 
bourhood in the first generation. This is an extreme 
case to show the importance of considering seedling 
structure in problems of ecology and distribution. 
The internal structure of seedlings is certainly a 
department of vegetable anatomy, just as their adapta- 
tion to the conditions of life is a department of vege- 
table physiology. That the connection between em- 
bryology and systematic botany must be equally close 
seems at first sight to be beyond dispute, but the 
exact nature of that connection is as yet undetermined. 
In systematic botany we have the net result of an 
enormous mass of experience. Generations of 
botanists have examined and described the external 
characters of plants; they have arranged and re- 
arranged them in groups until at last the instinct for 
affinity has been satisfied. In this continual sifting of 
characters some have been separated out as generally 
of systematic importance—the floral characters, for 
examples, and those of the seed. Certain features of 
the embryo are included among those characters, as 
already mentioned, but, on the whole, systematists 
have dealt exclusively with the adult plant. The 
embryo itself has been treated rather as a portion of 
the seed than as an individual. 
It would be rash to assume that seedling characters 
have been disregarded by systematists because they 
were too busy with the fully-developed plant to pay 
proper attention to the young forms. In all prob- 
ability some _of the earlier botanists examined the 
external characters of seedlings and rejected them 
12 Cf. the discussion of the homology of the Orchis-flower in Ch. Darwin's 
“* Fertilisation of Orchids,” chap. xiii.. .p. 225 in second ed., 1888. 
NO. 2295, VOL. 92] 
NATURE 
[OcToBER 23, 1913 
when they proved of tittle systematic value. But 
embryology, like the other branches of botany, entered 
on a new phase when the compound microscopé came 
into general use. It was commonly denied that the 
anatomical characters of mature plants had systematic 
value until the test case of fossil botany was decided 
in favour of anatomy. We need not be surprised that 
conclusions drawn from the new embryoiogy—that is, 
| the embryology which includes internal characters as 
well: as external—sometimes appear to conflict with 
the results of systematic botany, and it does not neces- 
sarily follow that embryological evidence is of no 
systematic value. The fault may lie with the em- 
bryologists, who, being human, do occasionally mis- 
interpret their facts, or possibly the natural system 
may need some modification in the light of new know- 
ledge. When both explanations have failed to account 
for the discrepancy in a number of cases we may be 
forced to give up looking for phylogenetic results from 
embryology. 
And so in the end the appeal is again to Time, who 
—as Milton says—devours 
** No more than what is false and vain, 
And merely mortal dross. 
So little is our loss, 
So little is thy gain.” 
SECTION L. 
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE. 
FROM THE OPENING ADDRESS By Principat E. H. 
GrirritHs, LL.D., F.R.S., PRESIDENT OF THE 
SECTION, 
We have now had forty years’ experience of com- 
pulsory education, and more than ten years’ experience 
of the working of the Education Act of 1902. We 
are spending at the present time out of the rates and 
taxes about thirty-four millions per annum upon 
education. It seems reasonable, as a nation of shop- 
keepers, that we should ask if we are getting value 
for our money, and the reply will, of course, depend 
on what we mean by value, for the man in the 
counting-house, the man in the street, and the man 
in the schoolroom all have different standards of 
valuation. 
Some of us are old enough to contrast the position 
of to-day with that of forty years ago. Do we ob- 
serve any definite advance in knowledge, intelligence, 
character, or manners, as compared with the pre- 
compulsory days? We must all be aware of the 
tendency to magnify the past at the expense of the 
present, but, after making due allowance for the fact 
that ‘the past seems best, things present ever worst,” 
it appears difficult to find distinct evidence of improve- 
ment in any way commensurate with the sacrifices 
which have been made. 
I have taken every opportunity of ascertaining the 
views of men of varied occupations and differing 
social positions upon this matter, and 1 confess that 
the impression received is one of universal discontent. 
The complaints are not only of want of knowledge, 
but also, which is far more serious, of want of intel- 
ligence. Consider a trivial example drawn from my 
own experience. I am a motorist in a small way. 
My ambition has been restricted in the matter of 
chauffeurs to lads fresh from our elementary schools, 
whom I have employed for what [ may summarise 
as washing and greasing purposes. Some six or 
seven of such lads have passed through my hands 
during the past nine years, and all of them have 
been at a primary school for some seven or eight 
years. They came with good characters, and all had 
passed up to the fifth or sixth standard. None of 
them could spell correctly, keep simple accounts, 
or appear to derive any enjoyment from reading. 
