July 1, 1898.] 



SCIENCE. 



23: 



periences, and makes the members modes of 

 itself. But while the child learns its members 

 most animals appear to be instinctively aware 

 of their somatic self in its parts and so to use 

 them from the hour of birth. But only 

 through the piecemeal learning of the somatic 

 self does there come a full and strong sense of 

 self. The man's hand is more really and fully 

 his than is the crab's claw its claw. Self-con- 

 scious self consciousness and all the high egoism 

 comes of learning. However, the child learns 

 itself in hand, foot, etc., by instinctive impulse, 

 just as it learns to walk instinctively ; but the 

 learning, of course, implies attention, will, 

 reason and feeling. 



Hiram M. Stanley. 

 Lake Foeest, III., June 16, 1898. 



COLOR VISION. 



In regard to the points concerning which Pro- 

 fessor Titchener considers that I have not cor- 

 rectly represented what he had to say on color 

 theories in his letter in Science of June 17th 

 it is so easy for the reader of Science to form his 

 own opinion, if he is sutficientlj' interested in the 

 subject to compare that letter with my reply to 

 it, that there is no occasion, fortunately, to pro- 

 long the discussion. Since Professor Titchener 

 has given so much attention to optics during 

 the past year as he says he has done, he must 

 plainly be much more familiar with the subject 

 than most of the psychologists have time to be, 

 and I have certainly hit it ofif very badly in 

 accusing him of ignorance. 



C. Ladd Franklin. 



SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. 

 Organographie der Pflanzen, in hesondere der 



Archegoniaten und Samenpflanzen, I. Teil. 



K. GoBBEL. Jena, G. Fischer. 1898. 



This first part of Dr. Goebel's Plant Organ- 

 ography has been awaited with impatience by 

 many botanists who knew that such a work 

 was in process of construction. Now, that the 

 first half of the treatise is otf the press, it can 

 already be understood what an important and 

 timely contribution to botanical literature is 

 this latest work by certainly the foremost Ger- 

 man plant morphologist, if not absolutely the 

 foremost in the world. In reading through the 



attractive pages one is impressed, fli'st of all,- 

 bj' the charming lucidity of the literary style, 

 then by the freshness of the illustrative ma- 

 terial, then by the perfect mastery of a wealth 

 of detail and accessary or incidental matter, 

 and finally by the philosophical and unpolemical 

 tone of the whole. Professor Goebel has suc- 

 ceeded in bringing together from his own 

 voluminous researches, and from the byways as 

 well as the highways of botanical literature, a 

 most interesting and suggestive volume. His- 

 general point of view is not at all new, for the 

 foundation of organ-evolution is sought in 

 adaptation rather than in the spirit of the recent 

 Entwickelungsmechanik. Strong antagonism is- 

 manifested to the archaic ' ideal-philosophy' 

 or ' nature philosophy' of Goethe and Herder, 

 which one would think, from the somewhat 

 unnecessary space given to its annihilation, 

 must exist somewhere in the vicinity of 

 Munich. The Goethean concept of the leaf, 

 the stem, the flower, as in some mysterious- 

 sense types, or ideal plans, is generally so 

 extinct that there seems scarcely justification 

 for seriously girding at it. Goebel points out, 

 truly enough, that there is no such thing as a 

 leaf rudiment, but only bud-scale rudiments, 

 sporophyll rudiments, cataphyll rudiments, foli- 

 age-leaf rudiments, etc. The leaf and the leaf 

 rudiment are pure abstractions. But this does 

 not seem to the reviewer so strong a position 

 upon which to found a theory of metamorphosis 

 as at first it did. It is true, Goebel's doctrine of 

 pure metamorphosis is based upon just this con- 

 ception of rudiments, and hence the position is 

 important if one wishes to understand his work. 

 It would seem that one has quite as much right 

 to insist that there are no bud- scale rudiments, 

 but only willow bud-scale rudiments, poplar 

 bud-scale rudiments, walnut bud-scale rudi- 

 ments, cherry bud-scale rudiments, etc. Thus 

 the bud-scale rudiment becomes, by the same 

 process of reasoning, quite as vague an abstrac- 

 tion as does the leaf rudiment. As a practical 

 proposition. Dr. Goebel's willingness to sub- 

 stitute analogy for homology in the foundations 

 of botanical terminology cannot have much 

 weight, for everywhere it is the phylogenetic 

 test that is regarded as final, and analogies are 

 rightly regarded as of secondary importance in 



