Be se 
Nee Se ee eee eee ee ee 
1892.] On the Classification of Metaphyta. III 
species is of course rendered difficult by the as yet uneradi- 
cated error of considering pollen-tube and embryo-sac con- 
tents in the light of organs belonging to the sporophytic 
forms of the species. I have had occasion before, in these 
Pages, * to call attention to the wellnigh hopeless confusion 
of botanical terminology in this region -of the science. When, 
Goebel speaks of the fertilized macrospore of Pilularia being 
attached to the ground by its prothallial rhizoids*, or when 
Miller entitles a work ‘‘The Fertilization of Flowers,” in 
_ Which fertilization is not even mentioned, it serves to illus- 
trate how deeply rooted is the fault of nomenclature which 
perpetuates the ancient errors of Camerarius, Linnzus, 
Sprengel and Erasmus Darwin. 
It is clear that there must still be much study before bot- 
anists can hope to define their species correctly, to say noth- 
ing of grouping them in an enlightened manner. The eman- 
cipated zodlogists of the day are accustomed, with an air not 
unfamiliar, to deprecate the attention bestowed upon classifi- 
cation and systematic work by the botanists. They do not, 
Perhaps, discern that in a way the problems of the botanist 
we are in a 
lum in a final Wanner. 
ved Sopeion of sporophytic structures in the plant see 
in their 4 considerable that certain divisions should be note 
ess im evelopment if they are to be set off against the far 
a and less highly evolved group of the Sporozoa. 
son Wi # wrong impression will be given in the compari- 
j ith this in view it may be advisable to recognize in 
«Got Gazette, xvr, 178, 189r. 
243. I: Outlines’ of Classification and Special Morphology, Eng. tran., 
