58 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JULY 
later in ontogeny, until what was first in phylogeny comes to be last in ontogeny. 
This disposition of the recapitulation theory appears in various places throughout 
the volume, and it is evident that the author regards it as reliable only within 
certain limits, when it agrees with other evidence. 
From among the general conclusions the following may be selected as of most 
general interest. The author concludes that no definite algal form now living 
can be held to have been a direct progenitor of any known archegoniate type; but 
that certain algae suggest in their post-sexual phase how the initiation of the 
sporophyte may have occurred. Also the liverworts and mosses may be held to 
be “blind branches of descent;” but they illustrate changes that suggest the 
origin of sterile tissues from those potentially fertile, and the final establishment 
of a self-nourishing system in the sporophyte. ; 
The gametophyte of early pteridophytes was probably a relatively massive 
green structure, with deeply sunk sexual organs; and the sporophyte was the 
strobiloid type of body illustrated by Lycopodium Selago and its allies (the author's 
well-known “theory of the strobilus”). This reconstruction of the most prim 
tive vascular body is obtained by converging all’the known pteridophyte lines, 
and the result is a body which arose from no one knows what, but which does not 
suggest any known bryophyte or alga. : 
This is a very meager outline of the contents of a large volume, crowded with 
facts and suggestions. Such speculation brings perspective and stimulus, and 
its only danger is a confusion of theory with fact, for which the author in this case 
could not be held responsible. Perhaps the most serious charge that could be 
brought against him, in this connection, is his great command of picturesque 
statements, which are highly figurative but contain perilous suggestions for the 
unwary. For example, that “encouragement was given” to a multiplication of 
spores; that the method of fertilization in archegoniates is “awkward and em 
barrassing;” that “‘a premium was put upon” aerial spores, etc., are extremely | 
telling forms of statement, but they are more rhetorical than exact, suggesting 
far more than was intended. ; 
At all events, the volume is a monument to the research power and philo- 
sophical insight of its distinguished author.—J. M. C. 
Electro-physiology 
_ Two years ago plant physiologists were rather taken aback by a large volume | 
of researches on plant response from the pen of a contributor previously aes 
in this field. It is not often that so brilliant a display marks the advent of aneW 
scientific luminary, and it was impossible at once to determine whether he ws 
meteor, whose light would flash and disappear, or a star of the first magnitue® — 
There were not wanting, indeed, signs that he was erratic. This work? conspicu: 
ously lacked relation to the present state of knowledge and showed scant acquaint 
el Ee J. C., Plant response as a means of physiological investigation. Se ea 
review in BOTANICAL GAZETTE 42:148. 1906. a 
