February 20, 1902] 



NA TUKt: 



)79 



2000 metres, and above il hung my deep-sea thermometers and 

 five or six buckets, at the depth of 1500 metres. As each bucket 

 came up. Dr. Gazert and Dr. Philippi speedily emptied it of its 

 contents to search for bacteria and determine the amount of 

 contained gas. Dr. Bidlingmaier, on the captain's bridge, regu- 

 lated his registering apparatus in the meteorological screen, while 

 Captain Ruser, beside him, kept the ship heading the swell and 

 watched that the deep-sea lines should not get foul and that 

 the ship should not overrun them. The chief engineer, Stehr, 

 on the after bridge watched the sounding apparatus with me. 

 The first officer looked after the line as it came up and quickly 

 dismounted the attached instruments. Vahsel saw to the 

 running of the windlass itself, and Ott, in the small dinghy, 

 picked up a huge albatross which Dr. Gazert had .shot, and 

 which was at once dissected by the practised hands of Dr. 

 Werth. Then came up Dr. Stehr's question as to how many 

 wheels were running on board at once, without actually counting 

 them. 



On Saturday, November 23, we reached Cape Town, having 

 made some magnetic observations near the coast. On Saturday, 

 December 7, the expedition will start again. 



I can only say, in conclusion, that we shall never forget the 

 warmth of the reception we met with, not only from the 

 Imperial Consul-General von Lindequist, the members of his 

 staff and the German colony, but also from the officials and 

 scientific men of Cape Town, which rendered our slay there 

 particularly pleasant. 



THE USE OF ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS 



IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF WOOD> 

 'X'HE chief contributions to the study of the secondary wood 



■^ of plants have been made by students of forestry, amongst 

 which the names of Nordlinger, Hartig, Brandis, Gamble, and 

 of many men connected with the Indian Forestry Department, 

 deserve our respect. The school of Radlkofer (especially 

 Solereder) has done good work in connection with the struc- 

 ture of the primary wood, which throws many sidelights upon 

 that of the secondary wood, yet there is much less help to be 

 derived from their studies than one would suppose, because 

 there is frequently much difference in the structure of the two 

 classes of tissue. 



The grouping of the vessels and the medullary rays and the 

 arrangement of the wood-parenchyma are frequently so charac- 

 teristic that various genera can he recognised by a glance at the 

 transverse section, i.e. horizontally as the tree stands ; and, 

 further, it is by no means rare to find the same structure running 

 through a whole genus or, less frequently, through a whole order. 

 A hundred genera could be cited which exhibit a strong family 

 likeness, and of the Proteaceae and Sapotacea; it may be said 

 that the description of the structure of the wood of one species 

 will practically serve for the whole order. On the contrary, 

 there are orders which appear to consist chiefly of exceptions, as 

 in the case of the Celastracea;, where it is difficult to find two 

 genera with any important feature in common. The structure 

 of the woody portion of cryptcgams has been employed for years 

 in the study of fossil plants ; that of the monocotyledonous 

 trees and of the conifers is notoriously uniform, and is as sure a 

 guide to their position in the natural system as any extern^ 

 character. Why then should not the same rule apply to the 

 angiospermous dicotyledons, and for what reason should the 

 thread be lost as soon as we pass from one division of the vege- 

 table world to another? It seems a by no means extravagant 

 idea that, inasmuch as it is quite indifferent to the welfare of a 

 plant what the structure of its woody portion may be so long as 

 it performs the mechanical duties imposed upon it, ancestral 

 traits should be preserved undisturbed in the wood more than in 

 any other pari. 



Ignoring this debatable question there is no doubt whatever 

 of the economic importance of this study. There are not only 

 so many kinds of timber in use in Europe and elsewhere, but 

 there are great numbers which are destined to become useful, 

 together making a variety with which no timber dealer can 

 keep en rapport by the old method of rule of thumb. It is 

 still more difficult in the colonies and in new countries to tell 

 one wood from another, because the number of persons possess- 

 ing the necessary training is smaller than at home. The popular 



1 Based upon a paper read before the Society of Arts on December 4, 

 1901, by Mr. Herbert Stone. 



NO. 1686, VOL. 65] 



and vernacular names are in many places so frequently dupli- 

 cated or misapplied that they are useless as guides unless the 

 structure of the wood be taken into account. Instances could 

 be multiplied in which wrongly named timbers have been 

 referred to their proper titles, and of inquiries for unknown 

 woods being directed into the proper channel, and of cases in 

 which attempted deception has been frustrated by the anatomical 

 method. 



For practical purposes it is rarely necessary to use high powers 

 of magnification or to study the sculpture upon the walls of the 

 cells. A pocket lens or a two-inch objective will frequently 

 suffice to display the special character of the structure. If 

 higher powers be used this individuality, as I may call it, is 

 lost, as it is dependent upon the arrangement or complex of the 

 elements. For instance, the radial or tree-like arrangement of 

 the vessels in the wood of all the trees of the genus Quercus is 

 recognisable by the naked eye, but it fails to be striking when 

 viewed under a half-inch objective. This particular feature 

 may be traced through the genera Corylus, Castanea, Ostrya, 

 Castanopsis and Carpinus, but not in Fagus. The concentric 

 undulating lines of vessels characteristic of the elms are also 

 usually visible to the naked eye and can be traced in every 



species of Ulmus and, in a modified form, in Celtis, also in 

 Ficus, Morus, Artocarpus, Madura and Urtica. 



It may at once be conceded that anything like a natural 

 system of classification of woods by their structure is quite im- 

 possible at present. There are too many glaring exceptions 

 and there is too little recorded information. Out of sixteen 

 species of Caprifoliacea examined,' fifteen have the same type of 

 structure, while the remaining one, I'ibiiryiuiii Tiiiiis, L., is quite- 

 different ; while out of nineteen species of Celastrus there were- 

 found no less than seven distinct types of structure. 



Nevertheless, amongst such a number of different woods at 

 guide to enable one to trace the name of any wood is a crying: 

 need, and several authors have attempted with more or less- 

 success to satisfy it. There are several by which the European, 

 woods may be identified, notably those by Mathieu, Hartig,. 

 Schwartz and Nor*inger, that of the latter embracing exotic- 

 woods also, to the'number of i too. Unfortunately, Nord- 

 linger, whose work is otherwise unrivalled, relies upon the 

 definiteness or indefiniteness of the boundary of the year's. 

 growth of wood in too great a degree, hence the student is led 

 astray. Alfred Ursprung has recently shown how elusive this. 

 ^ Sambucus, 2 species. Viburnum, 6 specie?. Lonicera, 8 species. 



