112 
J. M. GREENMAN 
and genetic relationship of groups of organisms has been materially 
broadened there has been thus far at least little application of the 
data obtained to affect, except to amplify, our present system of clas- 
sification. The basis of classification of the higher plants today is 
still the old morphology, namely that of Caesalpini, John Ray, 
Linnaeus, Wolff, Goethe, De Candolle, Eichler, Gray, Bentham and 
Hooker, and Engler and Prantl; and it is expressed in epitomized form 
in Engler 's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien (191 2), and, so far as the 
angiosperms are concerned, in a somewhat ampliated form by Wern- 
ham in recent numbers of The New Phytologist. Our present system of 
classification has resulted from a very gradual development of the 
science, and along with it there has also developed an elaborate 
terminology which is more or less arbitrary and to a certain extent 
fixed. Furthermore, it expresses, as has often been said, the best 
interpretation of correlated knowledge of relationships up to the time 
of its publication. 
Since the publication of Engler and FraintVs Die Nattirlichen Pflan- 
zenfamilien morphological research has been directed to various groups 
of plants a more detailed study of which might throw light upon their 
genetic relationship. Nowhere has this been more striking than in the 
Gymnosperms and nowhere I think may it safely be said to have 
been more effective from a taxonomic standpoint than in this group. 
Investigations in plant anatomy have shown conclusively the 
importance of morphological anatomy in determining genetic relation- 
ship or phylogeny. Modern methods, through the work of Scott, 
Oliver, Arber, Jeffrey, Bailey, Eames, Sinnott and others, have made it 
possible and profitable to carry on researches along these lines. Mor- 
phological considerations of structural elements hitherto unused, or at 
least used to a very slight extent, have been demonstrated to be of 
value in determining relationship. How far such characters can be 
made use of in a general system of classification must remain until a 
correlation of all facts is effected and possibly for a future generation 
to decide. Personally, I am inclined to believe that these less obvious 
features must remain subsidiary to the more evident characters which 
are relatively easy of access. 
There has also been a revival in the study of botanical embryology 
in its broader aspect, which just at present seems likely to be of the 
utmost importance in determining finally the relation of monocotyle- 
donous to dicotyledonous plants. In fact morphological evidence is 
