TERMINOLOGY OF REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OF PLANTS. 25 
I suggested; and to give some further arguments by way 
of justifying the use of certain terms for the employment 
of which I have been adversely criticised ; (8) and lastly, 
to propose certain alterations in my own scheme, which I 
trust may meet the approval of my critics and render the 
system more effective and satisfactory. 
(a) I took occasion (with however qualified assent and 
approval) to refer in my previous paper to the labours of 
Messrs. Bennett and Murray in the subject of the reform 
of the terminology of the reproductive organs of plants.* 
Now, however, that these authors have given emphasis to 
their work by employing their revised terminology in their 
recently published ‘‘ Handbook,” I feel that I ought to do 
more than merely state in general terms that I do not 
consider their system altogether satisfactory. 
“The first requisite in a terminology, after accuracy,” 
say these authors, “‘is simplicity; and to that end we have, 
wherever possible, used anglicised instead of Latin and 
Greek forms.” Following this principle, an antheridium 
becomes an ‘‘antherid,’ a sporangium a ‘‘sporange,”’ a 
cenobium a‘‘ceénobe,’ and soon. The charge of “‘awkward- 
ness” and “uncouthness” brought against the ‘foreign 
forms of these words’”’ by the authors is I think equally, 
if not more, valid in reference to the anglicised forms; 
and I am glad to find that Dr. D. H. Scott, in Nature 
(July 4th, 1889), makes precisely the same criticism. The 
change is also in my opinion quite unnecessary. I can see 
no objection to, but rather advantage in (linguistic), the 
use of Latin and Greek names, provided they accurately 
express what is intended and be accurately spelt. The 
authors themselves are indeed inconsistent even on this 
* “¢ K Reformed System of Terminology of the Reproductive Organs of the 
Thallophyta.” Q.J.M.S., vol. xx. 
