Reviews — A. C. Seward's Fossil Plants. 229 



a slight acquaintance witli geology," he thinks " for a botanist to 

 estimate the value of the most important applications of palteobotany ; 

 on the other hand, the bearing of fossil plants on the problems of 

 phylogeny and descent cannot be adequately understood without 

 a fairly intimate knowledge of recent botany." "The student of 

 elementary geology is not, as a rule, required to concern himself 

 with vegetable palaeontology, bej'ond a general acquaintance with 

 such facts as are to be found in geological textbooks. The advanced 

 student will necessarily find in these pages much with which he is 

 already familiar ; but this is to some extent unavoidable in a book 

 which is written with the dual object of appealing to botanists and 

 geologists." 



While we cordially admit that "a fairly intimate knowledge of 

 recent botany" is needful, if one proposes to take up such difficult 

 questions as " the bearing of fossil plants on the problems of 

 phylogeny and descent," yet, on the other hand, the recent botanist 

 who takes up the study of fossil plants with only " a slight ac- 

 quaintance with geology " is quite as likely to come to grief. Indeed, 

 the botanist who ventures into the domain of palEeobotany must be 

 well-equipped with geological, mineralogical, and chemical knowledge, 

 if he would attempt to interpret correctly the many structural and 

 stratigraphical problems which lie before him at the very threshold 

 of his investigation. 



The first chapter is devoted to a historical sketch showing the 

 dawn and development of geological ideas, more particularly those 

 relating to fossil plant-remains ; and the gradual evolution of accurate 

 and intelligent observation which superseded the theorists of the last 

 century. In the second the author treats of the relation of palaso- 

 botanj' to botany and geology. Here one naturally finds the 

 methods of using fossils by the stratigraphical geologist, solely 

 interested in determining the relative age of fossil-bearing rocks, 

 contrasted with the intelligent study of fossils by the zoologist and 

 the botanist, anxious to inquire into questions of biological interest 

 which centre round the relics of ancient faunas and floras. 



Alas ! how few zoologists really interest themselves in fossil 

 remains of extinct animals, seeing neither form nor comeliness, nor 

 anything to desire in them ! Indeed, our author admits that " the 

 botanist, whose observations and researches have not extended 

 beyond the limits of existing plants, sees in the vast majority of 

 fossil forms merely imperfect specimens, which it is impossible to 

 determine with any degree of scientific accuracy" ! "He prefers to 

 wait for perfect materials ; or, in other words, he decides that fossils 

 must be regarded as outside the range of taxonomic botany." 



This has been really the attitude of both zoologists and botanists 

 with regard to palaeontology until within the last twenty years. 

 Now all is changed, and the geologist is told by the biologist that 

 in the future he need not concern himself with fossil organic 

 remains ; they will be taken over into abler hands than his own and 

 properly dealt with. We are heartily glad to hear that this is to 

 be so ; but where, we venture to ask, would our science have been 



