PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, 703 
geschichte der Blitenpflanzen Mitteleuropas,’ edited by Kirchner, Loew, and 
Schroter. 
In a very useful paper on modern developments of seedling anatomy Mr. 
Compton has pointed out that the subject has been attacked from several 
divergent points of view. I have already referred to the work of M. Chauveaud 
and Professor Gravis, and have now come to that of a number of English 
botanists, whose aim—as Mr. Compton observes—is mainly phylogenetic. ‘They 
are even more clearly distinguished by their methods, which are those of com- 
parative anatomy. Instead of following the development of the seedling of a 
single species from germination to the age at which its cotyledons begin to decay, 
as M. Chauveaud has done in a number of carefully selected instances, they 
have compared the seedlings of different species and different genera at about the 
same age, generally choosing the epoch at which the tissues of cotyledon, 
hypocotyl, and primary root are most completely differentiated. There is 
nothing new in this treatment of the subject. It was employed in 1872 by 
Professor Van Tieghem** in his paper on the anatomy of Grass seedlings, in 
which he compares them with other Monocotyledons of the same age. Much 
greater precision is possible, however, now that the microtome has come into 
general use. 
The literature of this subject has increased rapidly of late years. The list 
of references in the footnote}! appended to this paragraph is, I fear, far from 
complete. But it is no part of my plan to review this work critically. The 
time is, perhaps, not ripe for such a review, and certainly the time at my 
disposal to-day is quite insufficient for it. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer 
some general remarks, first on the method itself, and then on the criticisms it 
has encountered. 
** Prof. Van Tieghem, Ann. Sec. Nat., ser. 5, xv., p. 236, 1872. 
** The following references are arranged alphabetically :— 
Arber, A., The Cactacee and the Study of Seedlings. New Phyt., 1X., p. 333, 
1910. 
Compton, R. H., An Investigation of the Seedling Structure in Leguminose. 
Iinn. Soc. Journ. Bot., xli., p. 1, 1912. 
de Fraine, Ethel. The Seedling Structure of certain Cactacee. Ann. Bot., XXIv., 
p. 125, 1910. 
Hill, A. W. The Morphology and Seedling Structure of Peperomia. Ann. Bot., 
XXI., p. 395, 1906. 
Hill, T. G. On the Seedling Structure of certain Piperales. Ann. Bot., xx., p- 160, 
1906. 
Hill, T. G., and de Fraine, Ethel. On the Seedling Structure of certain Centrosperme. 
Ann. Bot., Xxv1., p. 175, 1912. 
Hill, T. G., and de Fraine, Ethel. On the Influence of the Structure of the Adult Plant 
upon the Seedling. New Phyt., xr., p- 319, 1912. : 
Hill, T. G., and de Fraine, Ethel. A Consideration of the Facts relating to the Struc- 
ture of Seedlings. Ann. Bot., Xxvtt., p. 258, 1913. 
Lee, E. Observations on the Seedling Anatomy of certain Sympetale. Ann. Bot., 
XXVI., p. 727, 1912. 
Sargant, E. A New Type of Transition from Stem to Root in the Vascular System of 
Seedlings. Ann. Bot., xtv., p- 633, 1900. 
eed E. The Origin of the Seed Leaf in Monocotyledons. New Phyt.,., p. 107, 
Sargant, E. A Theory of the Origin of Monocotyledons, founded on the Structure of 
their Seedlings. Ann. Bot., xvu., p. 1, 1903. 
Sargant, E. The Evolution of Monocotyledons. Bot. Gaz., XXXVII., p: 325, 1904. 
Smith, Winifred. The Anatomy of some Sapotaceous Seedlings. Trans. Linn. 
Soc., series 2. Bot. vu, p. 189, 1909. 
Tansley, A. G., and Thomas, E. N. Root Structure in the Central Cylinder of the 
Hypocotyl. New Phyt., m1., p. 104, 1904. 
Tansley, A. G.,and Thomas, E. N. The Phylogenetic Value of the Vascular Structure 
ah of Se ae che bat Report, 1906. 
omas, E. N. eory of the Double Leaf Trace, founde i 
New Phyt., vi, p. 77, 1907. Pah esses Siepetnrs. 
The references given above refer to Angiosperms only, but so much work of a 
