212 The American Naturalist. [March, 



It is, however, quite different in the case of the works of the 

 two others, Naegeli and Schwendener; especially is this true 

 of the first named, whose long and busy life presents a record 

 of intellectual labor and achievement possibly unequaled and 

 probably unsurpassed by any other scientist of the present 

 generation. He was a teacher, like the other two, and not 

 only retained his position as professor of botany in the Uni- 

 versity of Munich, but fulfilled all its duties up to the day 

 preceding his death. Unlike the other two, he seemed to lack 

 in some degree that quality of mind usually so predominant 

 in teachers, namely, the necessity of impressing its mode of 

 thought on other minds. He was a sharp, keen, and logical 

 thinker, and directed his strongest efforts in search of unknown 

 truths. Although he may not in any sense be considered the 

 founder of a school, it would be impossible to discuss fairly the 

 present condition of this science without referring to the influ- 

 ence of his thought and labor. 



The object, therefore, of the following paper is to consider 

 briefly the present condition of plant physiology as it now 

 stands in Germany and England, represented as under the 

 controlling influence of two men, Sachs and Schwendener. A 

 paper claiming such an object must necessarily contain much 

 that is personal in character; it may, therefore, be allowed the 

 writer to disclaim, at the outset, all design of personal defense 

 or attack, whatever the appearance may be, the purpose being 

 to show, as clearly as possible in such brief limits, the princi- 

 pal features presented by the teachings of two men whose 

 methods and theories are in some respects antagonistic. 



Again, in farther explanation of this purpose, as before inti- 

 mated, the teachings of Sachs have become familiar through 

 the works and text books of his numerous students and disci- 

 ples. It is, perhaps, quite sale to say there is not a single text 

 book on plant physiology wl lid i in all its important features 

 is not based on the principles expressed and advocated by 

 Sachs. 



On the other hand, it is equally true that if there is a school 

 of scientists opposed to many of these theories it has not yet 

 reached the position to lay claim to this title by the publica- 



