83 
We agree thoroughly. The technical terminology of taxonomy 
can not be eliminated. That is correct. But “phylogeny should not 
be made a fetish.” There, in our opinion, lies the fundamental 
difference between an elementary course in taxonomy, suitable 
for students without previous botanical experience, and an ad- 
vanced course. Since 1859, phylogeny has been the sole basis of 
every system of classification proposed. Every system is intended 
to represent its author’s idea of the course of evolution in plants. 
Every person who describes a new species or a new genus does 
so because he wishes to express an idea of plant relationships and 
hence of their phylogeny. Every botanist who changes the location 
of a family to a new position in the general scheme does so to 
demonstrate his idea of its phylogeny. When Engler began his 
system with the Pandanaceae and Typhaceae, he did so because he 
thought those families stood nearest the bottom of the phylo- 
genetic tree, and said so definitely in his summary of general 
principles. The whole subject consists of just two parts: first, the 
extension of knowledge by the discovery of hitherto unrecognized 
forms of plants, the “new species” of the world’s flora, and second, 
the arrangement of all plants into an orderly sequence. The first 
subject is not discussed by the author at all; the second is clearly 
recognized by him on page 3. Theophrastus’ classification into 
trees, shrubs, and herbs was orderly ; Linnaeus’ sexual system was 
very orderly, but neither of them is satisfactory today. The 
Order which we seek is an expression of evolution, of phylogeny. 
This the author also recognizes on page 6, even though he previ- 
ously deprecates it on page xi. 
The system of classification which he accepts is that of Engler, 
with the comparatively few changes introduced by Engler and 
Gilg in the last edition of the Syllabus. He summarizes the scheme 
for the Dicotyledons on page 150, Turning back to page 31, we 
find that he also presents in tabular form the “direction of evolu- 
tion in flowers” followed by the “characters of a primitive flower. 
Neither he nor anyone else can reconcile the position of the 
Piperales at the bottom of the classification with these statements ; 
that is, he deliberately rejects a scheme based on his own ideas of 
Phylogeny in favor of one which is not phylogenetic according 
to his own standards. His system is of course orderly and there- 
fore satisfies his own definition, but as far as being phylogenetic 
is concerned, he might almost as well have followed Linnacus. 
