K.—BOTANY. 197 
lagged far behind despite the brilliant lead given by Grew, Hales and 
Knight, our own countrymen, and that illustrious Italian, Marcello 
_ Malpighi. 
THE Seconp Hrocnu, 1831-1882. 
Doubtless it is a coincidence that the year 1831 marks not only the 
founding of the British Association for the Advancement of Science but 
also, as far as a date can mark, the beginning of a three-fold epoch in 
botany: the search for a natural system of classification ; the emergence 
of morphology as a study separate from taxonomy ; and the development 
of physiology. 
In the first Britain took her full share; Robert Brown, the Hookers, 
Lindley, Harvey, Daniel Oliver, and Bentham are worthy of ranking with 
Brongniart, Decaisne, de Candolle, Endlicher, Kichler, Engler, Gray and 
Warming. 
In morphology and physiology, on the other hand, the tale of British 
activity is dismal indeed: against a battalion of continental workers we 
can barely range a section in which ranked Robert Brown, Griffith, Harvey, 
Berkeley, Witham, and Williamson among morphologists, and Draper, 
Graham, Gilbert, Lawes, Burdon-Sanderson, and Darwin representing 
plant physiology. It will be seen that during this period British work 
caused but a ripple on the botanical surface. But there is one exception : 
the brilliant generalisations of Charles Darwin. 
Come December 27 next, H.M.S. Beagle sailed from Devonport a 
hundred years ago. 
Morphology.—n 1831, morphology for the most part had relation to 
the phanerogams only and its concepts were based more on philosophical 
considerations than on inductive science; the structure and life history 
of no plant was completely known ; the fields of the vascular cryptogams, 
the bryophytes and the thallophytes were almost untrodden; and the 
realms for research were thus well nigh unlimited. It, therefore, is not 
surprising that when ontogeny came into being, the trickle of investiga- 
tions fast developed into a flood and for this the greatest honour is due 
to Schleiden, Nageli, von Mohl and Hofmeister, for they showed the way 
and contributed the most. Amongst the many famous investigators of 
this period, names occur and recur. Thus, under Alge is noted the 
work of Niageli, Cohn, Reinke, Pringsheim, de Bary, Woronin, Alex. 
Braun, Thuret and Bornet. Bornet, in addition to his distinguished 
work on the Algz, shares with Stahl the honour of establishing the nature 
_of the lichens, not only by analysis but also by synthesis, and thus proving 
the truth of the earlier views of Schwendener. Amongst those who laid 
the foundations of our knowledge of the Fungi were Cohn, Tulasne, 
Woronin, van Tieghem, who was particularly interested in the mucors, 
Brefeld andde Bary. In the elucidation of the Muscinee, Mirbel, Bischoff, 
Leitgeb and Hofmeister are most famed. The vascular cryptogams 
attracted many: Cramer, Nigeli, Leitgeb, Bruchmann, Mettenius whose 
best work was, perhaps, that on Ophioglossum and Phylloglossum, Millardet, 
Hanstein, Hegelmaier, Russow, Hofmeister, Cramer, von Mohl, Prantl, 
Kny, Goebel, de Bary, Strasburger and many others. This recital may 
be almost without meaning to some, it is not the present fashion to read 
