^^^^^^^^ ^^<>tx^ 



CH. Il] NEGLECT OF FOSSILS BY BOTANISTS. 13 



They find the literature is often characterised by a special 

 palaeontological phraseology, and by particular methods of 

 treatment, which are unknown to the student of living plants 

 and animals. From this and other causes a purely artificial 

 division has been made between the science of the organic 

 world of to-day and that of the past. 



Fossils are naturally regarded by a stratigraphical geologist 

 as records which enable him to determine the relative age 

 of fossil-bearing rocks. For such a purpose it is superfluous 

 to inquire into the questions of biological interest which centre 

 round the relics of ancient floras. Primarily concerned, there- 

 fore, with fixing the age of strata, it is easy to understand how 

 geologists have been content with a special kind of palaeon- 

 tology which is out of touch with the methods of systematic 

 zoology or botany. On the other hand, the botanist whose 

 observations and researches have not extended beyond the 

 limits of existing plants, sees in the vast majority of fossil 

 forms merely imperfect specimens, which it is impossible to 

 determine with any degree of scientific accuracy. He prefers 

 to wait for perfect material ; or in other words, he decides that 

 fossils must be regarded as outside the range of taxonomic 

 botany. It would seem, then, that the unsatisfactory treatment 

 or comparative neglect of fossil plants, has been in a large 

 measure due to the narrowness of view which too often charac- 

 terises palaeobotanical literature. This has at once repelled 

 those who have made a slight effort to recognise the subject, 

 and has resulted in a one-sided and, from a biological 

 standpoint, unscientific treatment of this branch of science. 

 It must be admitted that palaeobotanists have frequently 

 brought the subject into disrepute by their over-anxiety to 

 institute specific names for fragments which it is quite im- 

 possible to identify. This over-eagerness to determine imperfect 

 specimens, and the practice of drawing conclusions as to bo- 

 tanical affinity without any trustworthy evidence, have naturally 

 given rise to considerable scepticism as to the value of palaeo- 

 botanical records. Another point, which will be dealt with at 

 greater length in a later chapter, is that geologists have usually 

 shown a distinct prejudice against fossil plants as indices of 



