February 6, 1903. J 



SCIENCE. 



205 



principle embodying the relation of struc- 

 ture to function and external factors, with 

 what eagerness even the apparently most 

 trivial fact was gathered and pondered, in- 

 stead of with the dogged sense of duty 

 which drove us through the old anatomy. 

 Here were spirit and life. True the dis- 

 ciples of Schwendener and Haberlandt, 

 led on by the fascination of the new 

 thought, in more than one instance have 

 run beyond their masters in facile inter- 

 pretation, but can any one doubt that the 

 science of botany has been permanently ad- 

 vanced by the enlightening inspiration of 

 the ' Physiologische Pflanzenanatomie ' ? 



Morphological studies are coming into 

 the same category. The methods and con- 

 clusions of Goebel in the 'Organography' 

 have been criticised, it is true, but it may 

 be well to consider that morphology 

 through such work, as has been well said, 

 is no longer the history of an idealized 

 type, but an account of form as correlated 

 with function and environment. Is there 

 any question that we have gained im- 

 mea-surably by the change and that this 

 great work has materially contributed to 

 the more scientific view? Most suggestive 

 are recent studies of the orientation of the 

 plant egg and its ecological significance. 

 Surely embryology is in a more hopeful 

 position to-day because a few daring minds 

 have ventured beyond the limits of pure 

 morphology and the bounds of absolute 

 proof, and have suggested relations that 

 may require many years to finally establish. 



Still another phase of ecological study, 

 namely, plant distribution as developed by 

 "Warming, Schimper and others, has re- 

 cently come into special prominence. It 

 involves no less than an attempt to account 

 for the present actual distribution and 

 association of plants, through historical 

 and present agencies, and the response of 

 the living organism to its surroundings. 



More perhaps than any other branch of 

 biological investigation, it calls for the most 

 varied and thorough preparation. There 

 must be a ready knowledge of systematic 

 botany as a working tool, at least good gen- 

 eral training in physiology, correct mor- 

 phological conceptions, and a practical 

 knowledge of physiography. All of these 

 added to sound judgment and conserva- 

 tive habits of thought are essential pre- 

 requisites to the successful study of this 

 subject as it is now taking foi-m. 



It may be asked whether this branch of 

 science has within itself enough to warrant 

 such preparation and the devotion with 

 which it is pursued by no small number of 

 the rising generation of botanists. There 

 can be, it seems to me, but one reply. If 

 the labox's of geologists in bringing to light, 

 piecemeal and often with more or less 

 uncertainty, the past history of the earth 

 is warranted— as it is a thousandfold, 

 whether the progress of science or indus- 

 trial achievement is considered— then the 

 critical study of this last phase of geolog- 

 ical history, a phase which no living geolo- 

 gist is prepared to work out alone, fully 

 justifies the most efScient and persistent 

 effort that botanists trained in the manner 

 indicated are capable of giving. Like the 

 geologists, they are confronted with prob- 

 lems of peculiar intricacy, some of them no 

 doubt insoluble, many that can never be 

 settled in the quiet of the laboratory, 

 othei-s perhaps that can be settled nowhere 

 else, all together involving work that must 

 inevitably attract men who are more than 

 botanists merely, who are willing to 

 grapple with problems of many elements 

 and more than one unknown quantity, and 

 who know how to work patiently when re- 

 sults are both slow in coming and incom- 

 plete. Very few, indeed, have possessed, 

 or are likely to possess, all these qualifica- 

 tions, yet some real progress has already 



