Apeil 24, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



653 



generation (gametopliyte) in the pterido- 

 phytes. Where I differ from the extreme 

 morphological view is just here, that while 

 I admit that all sexuality, in whatsoever 

 that may consist, is confined to the game- 

 tophyte in the lower forms where the two 

 generations (as best manifested in the 

 ferns) are structurally, morphologically 

 and physiologically distinct, I deny that 

 sexuality is confined to the gametophyte 

 in the higher plants, where the gametophyte 

 has become structurally incorporated with, 

 and physiologically dependent upon, the 

 sporophyte. If, then, sexuality is not con- 

 fined to the gametophyte of the flowering 

 plant in fact, obviously it should not be 

 in terminology. 



"We must here note an important point 

 in the discussion, namely, that it has two 

 distinct phases: (1) There is the matter 

 on which Professor Bailey argues, that, as 

 a matter of propriety in usage, the old and 

 familiar sex-terminology should not be 

 wrested from its prior and consistent 

 analogical significance and given a new and 

 technically limited morphological applica- 

 tion. (2) There is the new contention 

 here defended, that a restriction of the sex- 

 terminology to the gametophyte in the 

 flowering plant is incorrect in fact. We 

 may best consider them separately. 



As to the first, and allowing for the 

 moment (for clearness of argument) that 

 sexuality may be confined to the gameto- 

 phytes in the flowering plant, I think Pro- 

 fessor Bailey's argument for the retention 

 of the sex terminology to its present ap- 

 plication is perfectly conclusive. He is 

 certainly correct in his contention that the 

 original sex-terminology was based upon 

 analogies, with no thought of homologies; 

 a male organ was that structure which 

 secured the formation and functioning of 

 the male element, and such an organ a 

 stamen is; a female organ was that struc- 



ture which secured the formation and 

 functioning of the female element, and 

 such an organ a pistil is. Now morpholo- 

 gists have no right, I believe, to attempt 

 to wrest the sex-terminology from its con- 

 sistent, intelligible, widely-used and prior 

 application to analogies, and give to it a 

 new and technical use for homologies, an 

 attempt made still less excusable through 

 the claim of its advocates that the earlier 

 application is erroneous and only theirs is 

 correct ! Science is expected to apply new 

 terms to its discoveries, and new concep- 

 tions; it should not attempt to appropriate 

 an older terminology to new uses. As a 

 matter of fact science has given an ample 

 terminology of its own to the parts of the 

 plant involved in the present discussion, 

 and the confusion which has arisen in 

 teaching and elsewhere is the result of a 

 neglect to make full use of those terms, a 

 neglect due no doubt to the mistaken no- 

 tion that an adaptation of the older term- 

 inology to the new conceptions would con- 

 duce to clearness. I am of opinion, based 

 upon some experience, that the difficulties 

 in teaching, of which Professor Barnes and 

 Professor Ramaley speak, can be met by a 

 rigid application of the definite scientific 

 terms sporophyte and gametophyte, with 

 an abandonment of the misleading terms 

 sexual and non-sexual generations. 



We consider next the second point, 

 whether, as a matter of fact, sexuality is 

 confined to the gametophyte in the flower- 

 ing plant. At the one extreme is the 

 gametophyte of the fern, independent 

 anatomically, morphologically and physio- 

 logically from the sporophyte; to it the 

 name sexual generation (viz., that genera- 

 tion which produces the sexual elements) 

 correctly and appropriately applies. At 

 the other extreme is the gametophyte of 

 the specialized phanerogam, where the 

 gametophyte is formed, nourished and de- 



