24 
ADDITIONAL NOTES on the TERMINOLOGY of the 
REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS of PLANTS. 
By R. J. Harvey Greson, M.A., F.L.S., F.R.S.E., 
LECTURER ON BOTANY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LIVERPOOL. 
[Read 14th December, 1889.] 
DvRING last session I laid before this Society a few sug- 
gestions on the necessity for a revision of the terminology 
of the reproductive organs of plants, and indicated in 
outline what seemed to me at that time to be the most 
desirable features to be aimed at in such a revision. I 
need not do more on the present occasion by way of 
resumé than briefly restate the principles on which I 
based my suggestions. They were briefly these :— 
1. that in view of the fundamental unity of Botany and 
Zoology, not only in subject matter (living organisms) but 
also in method, it is desirable that the names, at least of 
the reproductive organs and of their products, should be 
the same in both these sub-sciences ; 
2. that at present the terminology of the reproductive 
organs of plants was in a transitional and exceedingly 
unsatisfactory condition ; 
3. that the terminology of the reproductive organs of 
animals afforded a convenient and suitable model on 
which any reform might be based. 
I desire in the present paper (1) to make a few remarks 
on the system of terms which has been suggested and 
worked upon in the ‘‘ Handbook of Cryptogamic Botany,” 
recently published by Messrs. Bennett and Murray; (2) to 
reply to various criticisms offered by Prof. T. J. Parker, 
F.R.S., and Mr. P. W. Myles, F.L.S., on the terminology 
