204 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 
University College, London, immediately followed, which is hardly 
surprising since the Professor, Daniel Oliver, as Keeper of the Herbarium 
in the Royal Gardens at Kew, was in close touch with Thiselton-Dyer 
who became Assistant Director to Sir Joseph Hooker. At Cambridge 
was Sydney Howard Vines. 
University College, London, honours Frederick Orpen Bower and 
Dukinfield Henry Scott who there first taught and in turn migrated to the 
Royal College of Science and from thence Bower to Glasgow and Scott to 
the Jodrell Laboratory at Kew. Thiselton-Dyer sowed the seed and 
tended the seedling: Bower and Scott played the most prominent part 
in bringing the seedling to fruition: British morphology was raised to 
its peak; a most illustrious school of phyletic anatomy was founded. 
The advance also was accelerated by the translation of the great German 
textbooks, and the University of London, not then a teaching university, 
gave powerful aid by the high standard of its examinations and its insistence 
on practical tests. 
This activity was marked by the appearance of a new journal, the 
‘ Annals of Botany,’ in 1887. Hitherto original work was published for 
the most part in the Proceedings and Transactions of the learned societies 
and in the ‘ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science,’ but the output 
of botanical work so increased that the ‘ Annals’ came into being and 
enfolded the shorter works of the new school. 
The condition of botany at the beginning of this epoch will be realised 
by the reading of Sachs’ text-books. In all branches of botany there were 
masses of well ascertained facts, the principles appeared to be settled and 
the problems formulated. Some aspects, such as anatomy, were in an 
advanced stage and were developing in various directions, such as 
taxonomic anatomy under the guidance of Radlkofer and physiological 
anatomy in which Haberlandt was the pioneer ; other aspects, physiology, 
for example, were relatively backward. In the groups there were many 
gaps to be filled, more especially in the completion of our knowledge of 
life-histories and in the details of development. Much of this work was 
impossible of accomplishment without the appropriate technique and had, 
perforce, to await the arrival of the continuous ribbon microtome, which 
botanists were slow to adopt, and the application of precise chemical and 
physical methods. 
Morphology.—tIn morphology great advances were made and the 
trend was twofold. For some years in this country the connecting thread 
of many investigations was phylogeny, but on the Continent, especially 
in Germany, causal morphology was more dominant in which development 
Goebel, impatient of phylogeny, played a pre-eminent part. His work 
and his teaching on the influence of the environment on the configuration 
of plants cannot be too highly appraised, he with Wiesner, Haberlandt, 
Stahl, Bonnier and other pioneers stripped morphology of its formalism 
and revealed the plasticity of the plant. 
Of the lower groups I shall say but little since they have been the 
subject of recent authoritative addresses; one name, however, leaps to 
mind, that of Klebs, whose work on the conditions governing the repro- 
duction of the green Algeisclassical; W. and G. 8. West, father and son, also 
may be mentioned, for they did much to further our knowledge of the 
Se 
