147 
Physiological Anatomy. 
Physiologische Pflanzenanatomie, von Dr. G. Haberlandt. Dritte, 
neubearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage. Leipsig, Engelmann, 1904. 
When the first edition of this book was issued in 1884 it came as 
an exposition of the results obtained during the course of the first 
decade after the publication of Schwendener’s “ Mechanische 
Princip im anatomischen Bau der Monokotylen.” The work of 
Schwendener and his pupils was the first systematic attempt to 
consider the details of plant-structure in the light of adaptation to 
function. Many of the earliest pioneers of plant-anatomy had 
been rightly dominated by the desire to discover the uses of the 
structures they unravelled, but premature attempts to speculate on 
such questions, while physics and chemistry and the knowledge of 
the general economy of plant-life were yet in a very rudimentary 
condition, led to the promulgation of some very grotesque theories. 
Hugo von Mohl rendered a conspicuous service to anatomy by 
rigidly confining himself to descriptive work and, bringing back the 
subject to the region of objective reality, well and surely laid the 
foundation stones of the modern fabric of descriptive anatomy. 
Von Mohl was succeeded by a series of workers, among whom 
Nageli, Sanio and Hanstein are the most conspicuous names, 
largely dominated by the idea that the history of development gives 
the true key to the interpretation of structure, and under this 
influence the formation of the different tissues of the higher plants 
was largely worked out. 
Thus the ground was prepared for the work of the 
Schwendenerian school—a thorough knowledge of the facts of 
structure and development of tissues, together with the more 
advanced knowledge of plant-physiology, enabling their interpretation 
as a series of mechanisms for the performance of the various work 
of the plant-body to be undertaken with more prospect of success 
than was possible half a century earlier. 
Since the publication of Haberlandt’s first edition yet another 
direction has been impressed upon anatomical study. The consi¬ 
deration of the phylogenetic history of tissues, foreshadowed by 
Russow many years ago, and by no means neglected by Haberlandt 
himself, has become the basis of much of the best work of the last 
fifteen years, and as in other departments of biology, undoubtedly 
furnishes a valid basis for the comparative study of form. But even 
this historical method tends to become barren and rather formal 
without constant reference to function, and it is only in a combi¬ 
nation of the two points of view, the historical and the physiological, 
