244 Correspondence. 
In their recently published and excellent book on the Morphology of 
Angiospernis, Drs. Coulter and Chamberlain devote a chapter to the 
palseobotanical records of Flowering plants. 1 These authors, while com¬ 
menting on the unsatisfactory nature of the available data, endeavour to give 
a summary of such testimony as we possess bearing on the pliylogeny of 
the Angiospernis. The evidence is, I believe, even more unsatisfactory 
and less trustworthy than their treatment of it implies. 
The most valuable palseobotanical discoveries made in recent years are 
those which are based on the study of petrified fragments of Palteozoic 
plants. Attention has therefore been concentrated on this branch of the 
Science. The less satisfactory and more difficult quest for evidence 
bearing on the ancestry of Angiospernis has, in consequence, teen almost 
completely neglected. There are undoubtedly many serious difficulties to 
be considered in approaching the study of fossil Flowering plants; but we 
have spent our time in magnifying the unpromising features of the work 
instead of testing the capabilities of the available material. 
The data quoted by Coulter and Chamberlain and by other writers 
have in many cases been compiled by authors whose lack of botanical 
knowledge renders their records of doubtful value, if not positivefy mis¬ 
leading and pernicious. 
To quote one case : Drs. Coulter and Chamberlain refer to various 
Dicot3'ledons of Lower Cretaceous age, which it has been customary to 
refer to as Proangiosperms and to regard as comprehensive types. These 
so-called Proangiosperms are, I believe, in many instances of no botanical 
value and their designation by so alluring a title is not justified by the 
facts. Before we cau hope to draw conclusions from fossil forms obtained 
from the oldest rocks in which undoubted Angiospernis occur, we must 
exercise the greatest care in sifting evidence and in eliminating all records 
that cannot be accepted with confidence. 
My aim is not only to draw attention to the more or less worthless 
character of much of the material on which far-reaching conclusions have 
been founded, but to suggest that one of the most pressing needs is a 
thorough revision of fossil species from Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. 
The work is laborious and extensive and beyond the power of the great 
majority of botanists to undertake single-handed. We require an organised 
exploration of the later plant-bearing strata and of the wealth of material 
already collected, which should be taken in hand by experienced palaeo- 
botanists in conjunction with botanists who possess a wide and accurate 
knowledge of recent Angiospernis. I am convmced that the study of fossil 
Flowering Plants is well worthy of attention, and if undertaken by men 
who well recognise the limitations both of the capabilities of the material 
and of their own unaided power of identifying fragmentary fossils, p is a 
study that will yield results of the greatest importance. It would not be 
difficult to obtain the assistance of experienced systematists to criticise 
determinations and to co-operate in the determination of species: a greater 
difficulty is to find workers who are willing to devote a considerable amount 
of time to a laborious task and to enlist the services of specialists in the 
determination of their material. 
I have ventured to write this letter in the hope that it nia}^ be the 
means of obtaining suggestions as to how the critical examination of 
Cretaceous and Tertiary Angiospernis may best be undertaken. 
Botanical Eaboratoiy, 
I am, 
Cambridge, Yours faithfully, 
Nov. 9th, 1903. A. C. SEWARD. 
1 Morphology of Angiospernis. J. M. Coulter and C. J. Chamberlain. Chapter 
XIV. (New York, 1903). 
P. Madi.kt, Printer, 151, Whitfield Street, W 
