84 
It is not a question of a difference in opinion between the 
author and the reviewer on the course of angiospermous evolu- 
tion, in which we seem to agree. It is merely a question of the im- 
portance of phylogeny in teaching. The author says that phylogeny 
is overdone (p. xi), that the system which begins with the Mag- 
nolias and their relatives, standing at the bottom of the series 
according to the author’s own statements, “has the disadvantage 
of being rather involved and rendering it difficult to place quickly 
in its proper category any plant that may be in hand” (p. 11), 
and that “we shall find little difficulty in placing a flower” in the 
categories which he adopts (p. 151). The reviewer says, after 
teaching nineteen classes in taxonomy, that phylogeny is the ulti- 
mate end of all classification, that emphasis on phylogeny furn- 
ishes a motive to the course and lends zeal to the student, and that 
the principles of the Besseyan system are so easily grasped by the 
student that he finds relatively little difficulty in placing a plant 
in its proper category. 
We admit that a plant can be identified with some degree of 
completeness by any system of classification. If that is the sole 
aim of a textbook, let us use the Linnaean sexual system. We 
maintain that phylogeny is the aim of a course in taxonomy and 
the basis of classification. If our contention is true, then the book 
before us has failed in its purpose. 
H. A. GLEASON 
