No. 380.) REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATURE. 60 
: 7 
yield to the fascination of phylogenetic studies. When, for example, 
he says, “ It seems to me that the recognition of the factors which 
make one side of a leaf larger than the other is of more importance 
than the building up of a phylogenetic structure from unsupported 
hypotheses,” there is an implication of the futility of a// phylogenetic 
speculation which we feel is scarcely warrante 
While the first section of the book (“Allgemeine Gliederung des 
Pflanzenkorpers ”) takes into account the morphology of the Thallo- 
phytes, the rest of the work is confined to a discussion of the Arche- 
goniates and Spermatophytes. The question of the province of 
morphology is treated at length, and very clearly, in the first section. 
The impossibility of clearly separating structure and function is 
emphasized, and the difficulties in absolutely distinguishing homol- 
ogies and analogies are pointed out. As he very clearly shows, it is 
perfectly evident that the same result has been brought about in 
much the same way in widely divergent stocks. For instance, while 
the leaves of such an anacrogynous liverwort as Fossombronia, and 
those of an acrogynous form like Jungermannia are doubtless homol- 
ogous in the sense that they bear the same relation to the apical cell 
of the shoot, nevertheless there is every reason to believe that they 
have developed quite independently of each other. 
In classifying the fundamental organs of plants, Goebel divides 
them first into two categories, vegetative and reproductive organs. 
In view of the difficulties of limiting the definitions of stem 
(caulome) and leaf (phyllome) in the vascular plants, our author 
regards these as modifications of a common fundamental structure, 
the shoot (Spross), while the root is the second of the two primary 
vegetative structures. Hairs (trichomes) and “ emergences” are 
considered as appendages merely of the two fundamental structures. 
While, of course, the stem and leaves of the higher seaweeds and 
mosses are recognized as not being the homologues of those of the 
vascular plants, still Goebel does not think it best to adopt new 
names for these structures. 
The second group of fundamental structures, the reproductive 
organs, are of two kinds, sporangia ‘(or sporogonia) and sexual 
organs, antheridia and archegonia (or odgonia). Goebel was perhaps 
€ first botanist to show that the sporangia of the ferns, for instance, 
are in no proper sense to be considered as modifications of structures 
once vegetative in nature, but that they, as well as the sexual organs, 
must be considered as fundamental structural types. The whole 
trend of the conclusions, based upon the most recent study of the 
