214 



THE NATUEALIST. 



made on tlie subject of ordinary teratological facts. It has been said tbat 

 to describe monstrosities wMch. do not modify our current ideas, and tbeoretic 

 principles does not in any way contribute to the advance of science. All 

 those who are conversant with the wants of Teratology cannot admit any 

 such way of thinking. And on what do the physical sciences and particularly 

 the natural history sciences, in general, depend 1 Most assuredly on facts ; 

 and the more numerous these facts are, so much the more solid are the deduc- 

 tions, the more sure the theory. ISTothing, it seems to me, ought to be 

 neglected when we are engaged in the study of natural phenomena ; that 

 which to-day appears insignificant, may to-morrov\^ throw a new light on the 

 subject and become of importance. When we are only engaged on simple 

 statistics, we must still accumulate all unedited facts, whatever be their value. 

 If we neglect ordinary cases, but which are nevertheless recognised in new 

 plants and which are consequently new, how, in later times, shall those who, 

 occupied on the generalisations of science, recognise what is rare from what 

 is common and frequent ; how shall they deduce certain laws based solely 

 on statistics ? 



As far as regards ordinary and well known facts, and of which the inter- 

 pretation is open to no doubt whatever, I consider it superfluous, to 

 dilate at any length upon them, and their bearings. I have not thought it 

 wise, after the example of some authors, to enter into lengthy erudite details, 

 to cite the opinion of others on analogous facts, or to repeat what every well- 

 instructed botanist ought to know well : to describe succinctly each mons- 

 strosity has seemed to me sufficient. 



The greater proportion of the follovfing cases appear to me altogether 

 und escribed, but it is possible that one or other of them may have already 

 been published. At present, it is extremely difficult to say, of any teratolo- 

 gical fact vfhatever, that it is really inedited. To do this, would require 

 that one should possess a very complete botanical library. The describer 

 tlius often runs the risk of repeating things already known. It is very desi- 

 rable that some courageous worker would undertake the publication of a 

 General Index, in which might be found an indication of all the described 

 monstrosities, each accompanied by a short diagnosis. 



In the following notes, where I employ the word adhesion, 

 I do not use it in the sense of the old organographers, for it is well known 

 that the greater part of the adhesions and cohesions are not adhesions pro- 

 perly so-called, but imperfections of disjunction, or,- as M. Fermond expresses 

 it, defects of hecastosia. 



