662 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION K. 
sequence of its stability, has long been ‘a thing of dignity.’ The distinctive 
air thus imparted to botany is best appreciated when a zoological index is 
examined. 
The use of scientific names, more precise than popular terms and more 
convenient than descriptive phrases, facilitates the work of reference in 
applied study. These names are accidents which do not affect the taxonomic 
status of the units to which they are applied, but do, however, reflect the 
want of uniformity in the limitation of these units. The non-systematist 
who has to apply systematic results appreciates that, as knowledge now 
stands, this is unavoidable, and makes allowance for the state of affairs. But 
applied workers complain that, in addition to this, descriptive writers show a 
tendency to care more for names than for the forms they connote, and wan- 
tonly alter the designations of familiar forms. The complaint is just, yet 
the action is not wanton. The tendency in its present form is of recent 
origin, and, paradoxical as the statement may seem, is the outcome of a wish 
for uniformity and stability in nomenclature. Of these two qualities the 
latter is of more importance in applied work, and therefore the more essential. 
Unfortunately the systematist has given a preponderating attention to the 
former, and, in his effort to attain a somewhat purposeless consistency, has 
allowed his science to wait upon the arts of bibliography. He has placed 
his neck under a galling and fantastic yoke, for nomenclature, though a good 
and faithful servant, is an exacting and singularly inept master. 
To err is human, and the standard of diagnostic work, high as it is, falls 
short of the standard which the systematic worker desires to attain. It is 
this fact that explains the remarkable openness of mind, and the great readi- 
ness to accept correction, to which systematic study conduces. ‘To this also is 
attributable the singular freedom of systematic research from the practice of 
making capital of the fancied shortcomings of fellow-workers. Exhibitions 
of this commercial spirit are not altogether unknown, and in one narrow field, 
where systematic results are practically applied, they are sufficiently common 
to appear characteristic. But they are contrary to the traditional spirit of 
systematic study, which is uncongenial to the arts of réclame. 
The subject is by no means exhausted. ‘Time, however, forbids more ; 
but the purpose of this sketch will have been fulfilled if it has helped those 
whose work lies elsewhere to appreciate more clearly what systematic study 
tries to accomplish, and to realise the place it fills in the household of our 
common mistress, the Scientia amabilis. 
The following Papers were read :— 
1. The Evolution of the Inflorescence. By J. Parkin, M.A. 
Apparently little effort has hitherto been put forward to advance the 
study of the inflorescence beyond the limits of descriptive morphology. In 
this paper an attempt was made to deal with the inflorescence from the evolu- 
tionary standpoint. 
The author, from a comparative study of the subject, has been led to 
believe that flowers were originally borne on the plant singly, each terminal 
to a leafy shoot. Several genera and species, chiefly in those families 
which for other reasons may be considered primitive, retain for the most 
part this early and simple arrangement, e.g., Magnolia, Liriodendron, 
Calycanthus, Peonia, Trollius, Adonis, Papaver, Romneya, Kerria, spp. 
of Pyrus, Rubus and Rosa. 
From such a shoot bearing foliage leaves below and ending in a single 
terminal flower, all inflorescences, as well as the solitary axillary flower, 
are to be derived. 
The first step is the formation of the simple cyme, usually a dichasiwm.— 
