74 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JULY 
by the intercalation of new bundles or by the formation of interfascicular 
cambium,” And that ‘numerous German books” say it in no wise enlightens 
the obtuse critic. 
Dr. Gregory misses the point of the criticism regarding the so-called 
change in structure of a stem as it grows older from the mono- to the dicoty- 
ledonous type. The fact was not questioned. But does it not strike her asa 
poor sort of classification (albeit widely used) which makes no better provi- 
sion for such a fact? Is it possible to maintain as types of structure those 
which are subject to so many exceptions as these? 
The statement that “there is certainly confusion regarding the secondary 
bast fibers and the similar tissues arising from the pericycle” is based not 
upon simplicity of language but upon the author’s inclusion of all thick-walled 
fibers and stone cells in the “elements of the secondary phloem” (p. 129). 
If they are not included by her in that category, then there is the entire omis- 
sion of any statement that such tissues often belong to the pericycle instead of 
to the secondary phloem; in which case the confusion would be transferred 
from the author to the students using the book.— ED. | 
