372 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [MAY 
throughout all taxonomic, genetic, and evolutionary studies, 
certainly these characters must be taken into account by the ceci- 
dologist. When the counterparts of these characters cannot be 
found associated with any normal tissue mass of any plant, they 
must be regarded as new and not as having had their origin from 
the plant side. As pointed out by the writer in a previous paper 
(12), ‘‘in prosoplasmas the types of cells found are closely compara- 
able to those of normal plant parts, but the tissue forms. (in proso- 
plasmas) are fundamentally new.’’ Kiister (10) speaks very 
properly of ‘‘Die prosoplasmatische Neubildungen,”’ recognizing the 
fundamentally independent character of the higher galls, but like 
CosEns fails to recognize that the origin in evolution of the proso- 
plasmas lies elsewhere than in pthe constitution of the plant or of 
the plant’s ancestors. 
Cook (2) arrived at a proper basis for advance when he saw 
that “the morphological character of the gall depends upon the 
genus of insect producing it, rather than upon the plant on which 
it is produced.” Coox, however, failed to use BEYERINCK’S (1) 
early division of galls into the “indefinite” and “definite” groups 
(a fundamental situation which KtsTer later developed), so that 
his work fell short of a full analysis; for, as has been indicated, 
the phylogenetic origin of the prosoplasmas from the kataplasmas 
(within cecidozoon groups) is all important. 
This leads to the nucleus of the present interpretation, which 
holds that in the contemplation of zoocecidia two fundamental 
groups must be recognized, kataplasmas and prosoplasmas, and 
that there exists a phylogenetic relation between them. The 
most interesting and significant situation in this connection is 
that, whether viewed ontogenetically or phylogenetically, kata- 
plasmic development progresses, through a process of increasing 
inhibition of host characters, from the normal host differentiation 
to complete homogeneity, upon the attainment of which proso- 
plasmic development may commence the construction of new 
differentiations and new forms. The embryological and compara- 
tive morphological evidence for this interpretation is overhwelm- 
ing, as has been indicated in the foregoing accounts of phylogenies 
and of-recapitulation phenomena. 
