Oren cele RS. : 
To the Editors of the Botanical Gazette:— Will you kindly allow the 
following few words of explanation in reference to certain statements made in 
‘a book review in the April number of your magazine? The writer first begs 
leave to thank the reviewer for the occasion thus given to make at the same 
time an explanation, or perhaps an extension, of the preface of the little 
book on plant anatomy. It is quite evident that it was the first effort or its 
kind ever undertaken by the author, and it is a somewhat consoling reflection 
that probably had a clearer and more definite statement been made of the 
purpose for which the book was written, it would have prevented, in some 
degree at least, certain unfavorable criticisms. 
It was taken for granted that the title, Evements of Plant Anatomy, would 
of itself suggest the fact that the plan pursued by the author in teaching these 
“dry bones” of the science was an exact parallel to the modern one adopted 
by biological teachers in the different departments of descriptive work, 
or that known as the type system. According to this, a bird’s-eye view 
of the field is first taken and a foundation laid upon which the superstructure 
is to be raised, either by lectures or text books of an advanced character OF 
both. But nowhere in the book is it stated that it was designed of for 
teachers but for students, and to be used by them as a framework merely; 
upon which each individual teacher could build by filling out the outlines 11 
his own way. It is in no way fitted for a reference book except for the learnet 
It was therefore by design and not through accident or ignorance that the 
recent theories, such as those relating to nuclear division and the nature of 
the starch grain, were omitted and the simple elementary facts upon which 
the later investigations are based were alone considered. That a serious and 
disappointing error has been made in the determination of what is really ele 
mentary in character is certainly a matter to be regretted. At the same time, 
as the reviewer kindly suggests, it is a mistake which may easily be corrected 
in a future edition. 
It is, however, quite otherwise with certain statements made in the review 
which must have resulted from a hasty or careless perusal of the text and It 
is to these especially that the author begs to call attention. That a misstat® 
ment or a misrepresentation of the facts of the development of the tissues of 
plants has been made, is a charge so serious that simple justice must allow 
the author a chance to plead not guilty. 
In answer to several of these charges, it is only necessary to refer to num- 
erous German, French and English text-books whose authority rests pei 
72 r 
