242 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 
in these sentences was by no means exceptional. Indeed, it may be 
fairly called the orthodox view at that time. Thus five years earlier, 
in 1891, Professor Strasburger, perhaps the most brilliant and success- 
ful German botanist of what we must now speak of as the last generation, 
wrote in the preface to his great work on the structure and functions of 
the conducting tissues: ‘ Morphology as such is a purely formal science, 
and thus corresponds approximately with comparative grammar, in that 
it explains forms by deriving them. It need be as little influenced by 
the functions of the forms to be derived as comparative grammar is 
influenced by the meanings of words. Not that a physiological treat- 
ment of the external and internal structure of a natural body would be 
less fruitful than the morphological, but it forms a different discipline.’ 
After referring to the unfortunate effect of physiological points of view 
on the work of the earlier anatomists, who called, for instance, the 
water-conducting elements of plants ‘ tracheal’ because they thought 
they were air passages, Professor Strasburger proceeded: ‘ With 
advancing enlightenment the provinces of morphology and physiology 
were separated from one another and developed on separate lines, with- 
out, of course, attaining complete independence . . . in fact, organs and 
functions are not separated in nature, and are only logically distinguished 
in crder to subserve the building up of science. . . . Morphology finds 
its task only in deriving one form from another, in tracing different forms 
to acommon origin. When this is successful the goal is reached. . . . 
The way which leads to morphological understanding is that of com- 
parison, but only because this way involves a phylogenetic significance. 
Since a direct phylogenetic proof of the origin of a given structure is not 
to be had, morphology remains tied to indirect methods. It is often 
supported in its task by ontogeny, but only in so far as this is capable 
of giving phylogenetic points of view.’* Here we have the same insist- 
ence on the separateness of the two disciplines, morphology and physio- 
logy, and the same clear statement that the object of morphology is 
the elucidation of phylogeny. We may note, however, one striking 
difference. Professor Strasburger thinks that morphology need be 
as little influenced by the functions of the forms to be derived as com- 
parative grammar by the meanings of words, and he does not claim, 
like Dr. Scott, that all features of an organism are, or have been in 
the past, adaptive. 
It is, I think, impossible to regard the views thus expressed by a 
representative English and a representative German botanist three 
decades ago as representing to-day an adequate outlook on the problems 
of botany as a whole; and I shall be engaged this morning in endeayour- 
ing to expound the view which I think we should put in its place. First, 
I must pay some attention to the causes of the orthodox attitude of the 
last generation, the generation in which I was botanically brought up, 
and whose orientation I fear I passively accepted. The main cause 
of the greatly intensified interest in comparative morphology which 
led to the claim that this subject represented a separate discipline, 
2 E. Strasburger, Ucber den Bau und die Verrichtungen der Leitungsbahnen 
in den Pflanzen, Histologische Beitrage JIT, Jena, 1891, p. vi. 
