FEBRUARY 1, 1901.] 
as the great link which binds the old to the 
new. As they commenced their work under 
conditions which are unknown to-day, they 
completed it with a full recognition of the 
different point of view which had been in- 
troduced by the wonderful progress of bo- 
tanical science in recent years, and their 
final publications fell within the closing 
decade of the century. With the disap- 
pearance of these three men whose great 
activity accomplished so much, we now 
turn to the Smithsonian Institution and 
the United States Geological Survey, with 
their superb resources in material, appli- 
ances, and a well-trained staff of scientific 
men, as the real center of our future prog- 
ress. 
The somewhat peculiar conditions sur- 
rounding the study of fossil plants in the 
earlier days of the subject somewhat natu- 
rally led to its exploitation by geologists 
into whose hands it fell, and where it has 
very largely remained until the present 
day. There has thus arisen a somewhat 
prevalent idea that the study of fossil plants 
constitutes a science altogether apart from 
that of botany, and for this state of affairs 
the botanists are themselves chiefly to 
blame for not promptly claiming and culti- 
vating a field peculiarly their own, for, as 
Ward well observes, ‘‘ Botanists have, as a 
rule, ignored paleontology, while the pa- 
leontologists have gone on with their classi- 
fications in total disregard of the former.” 
And he very appropriately adds that“ The 
mutual dependence of these two branches 
of botanical science upon each other is so 
apparent that it is certainly a matter of sur- 
prise that it has received so little recogni- 
tion by scientific men.” 
In whatever conditions this state of af- 
fairs may have had its origin, it is certainly 
gratifying to observe that botanists gener- 
ally are more keenly appreciative of the 
valuable nature of the evidence which fos- 
sil plants may afford in solving questions 
SCIENCE. 
163 
of descent. It is also encouraging to dis- 
cover that history does not fully sustain the 
extreme charge which has been brought 
against the botanical profession. Accept- 
ing Ward’s list of twenty-two men from 
Scheuchzer to Carruthers, who may be con- 
sidered to constitute the world’s great lead- 
ers in paleobotanical research, it is to be 
noted that fifty per cent. were especially 
trained and exercised their profession as 
botanists—there being among the number 
those who have’ produced a strong impress 
upon the general history of the science, and 
it will well repay us to briefly glance at 
some of their achievements. 
In 1820 Sternberg commenced the issue 
of his well-known Flora der Vorwelt, the 
publication of which extended over a period 
of eighteen years. This important work, to- 
gether with the succeeding works of Brong- 
niart, Goppert and Corda, opened the way 
for the final reception of the idea of evolu- 
tion in plants. 
To Adolph T. Brongniart, a contempor- 
ary of Sternberg’s, must be ascribed the 
greatest measure of influence exerted upon 
the development of paleobotany during the 
first three decades of the century,—a fact so 
eminently true that he is commonly spoken 
of as the real founder of the science. His 
observations upon, the formation of pollen 
grains in the mother cells of Cobea, and 
the frequency of occurrence of the pollen 
tube, were .the first to direct attention to 
this new line of inquiry. In 1843 he de- 
vised and published a system of classifica- 
tion which not only maintained a strong 
hold in France for many years, but it 
gained many adherents throughout Kurope. 
In his work on fossil plants we gain, for the 
first time, a definite indication of that suc- 
cession in the development of plant life 
through the various geological formations, 
which constitutes so important a feature of 
modern botanical science. 
Goppert was the first to draw attention 
