652 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVII. No. 434. 



My discussion of my subject has been 

 brief, though, perhaps, as long as your de- 

 sire. I have tried to show you that the 

 wide influence of the engineering schools is 

 of two branches: First, a direct effect ex- 

 erted through the graduates extending the 

 useful applications of science to the ad- 

 vantage of man (which is the effort of 

 every true engineer); second, an indirect 

 (but equally important) effect resulting 

 from the admirable education disseminated 

 amongst the people. And I have pointed 

 out not only elements of great educational 

 strength, but also some sources of weakness 

 in the schools. It has been my particular 

 wish to bring to your mind some image of 

 the potent influence for good which has 

 been in the past, and still more may be in 

 the future, borne on the body politic by 

 these schools, and to impress you with the 

 desirability of bringing to their support 

 the same bountiful endowments that are 

 now justly flowing to the support of the 

 medical schools. I trust that I may have 

 interested you and that I may have reach- 

 ed, in some degree at least, my object. 



In the course of my remarks I have had 

 frequent occasion to use the phrase ' ap- 

 plied science.' You must not mistake me. 

 Applied science is not something set off by 

 itself and differing from 'pure science,' 

 so-called. Far from it. It is pure science, 

 if you wish, pursued in the stimulating, 

 nutrient atmosphere bred of the belief that 

 all scientific knowledge returns to its pos- 

 sessor great good in proportion to the ad-. 

 vantages which he, through it, brings to 

 mankind. Such an atmosphere is to be 

 found in many of our medical schools and, 

 I hope, equally 'in our engineering schools. 



DuGALD C. Jackson. 

 University op Wisconsin. 



STAMENS AND PISTILS ABE SEXUAL 

 ORGANS.* 



The statement in the above title will be 

 received by some of my hearers with 

 wonder that so obvious a matter should 

 need any discussion, while by others, es- 

 pecially those versed in the modern mor- 

 phology, it will be met by emphatic dissent. 

 Yet I am convinced of its truth, and ven- 

 ture here to rise in its defense. 



The discussion of the subject is not new. 

 Professor L. H. Bailey, in Science for June 

 5, 1896 (reprinted in his 'Survival of the 

 Unlike,' page 67), defended, with his usual 

 clearness and vigor, the application of the 

 sex-terminology to stamens and pistils ; and 

 he was answered in the same journal for 

 June 26 by Professor Barnes, who main- 

 tained the strictly morphological view that 

 the sex-terminology should be restricted to 

 the gametophytes, or so-called sexual gen- 

 erations, within the pollen grain and the 

 embryo sac of the ovule. Recently this 

 morphological view has again been empha- 

 sized by Professor Ramaley, in Science 

 for June 20, 1902, and he puts the case 

 in its extreme logical form when he says: 

 "The stamens, therefore, can not be male 

 organs, nor the carpels female organs. * * * 

 There are no such things as male and fe- 

 male flowers, nor flowers which are uni- 

 sexual or hermaphrodite." This view I 

 hold to be an error, for the reasons which 

 follow. 



To prevent misunderstanding it should 

 be said at the outset that there is no dif- 

 ference of opinion as to the morphological 

 facts involved. We all agree that the con- 

 tents of the embryo sac when it is ready 

 for fertilization, and of the pollen grain 

 when in the corresponding condition, are 

 the gametophytes, the precise morpholog- 

 ical equivalents of the prothallus or sexual 



* Eead before the Society for Plant Morphology 

 and Physiology at the Washington Meeting, 

 December 30, 1902. 



