Phylogenetic System of Flowering Plants. 153 
In the preface to his German edition of Warming’s Manual of 
Systematic Botany (1902), Moebius refers briefly to my opinion 
that the Sympetalae are of polyphyletie origin. On pp. 411 and 137 
of the sixth, and on pp. 418 and 443 of the seventh edition of 
Strasburger, Noll, Schenck and Karsten’s Text-Book of Botany 
(Jena, 1904 and 1905), Karsten recapitulates my opinions of the 
origin of Dicotyledons, Monocotyledons, Choripetalac, Sympetalae 
and Amentiflorae. In his paper entitled, Die Grundlagen des 
Hallierschen Angiospermensystems, eine phylogenetische Studie 
(Beilicfte z. Dotan. Centralblatt , XVII. (1904), pp. 129-156), Gustav 
Senn, lecturer on Systematic Botany at the University of Basel, 
undertakes a very careful and critical examination of the principles 
on which my new system is founded, and in Just’s Annual Report 
on the botanical literature of 1903, Fcdde reports at great length 
on my different publications of that year. Only partly favourable 
are Wettstein’s reviews of my paper on morphogeny and phylogeny 
(Hamburg, 1903) in the Oesterreichisclie Botan. Zeitsclirift L111. 
(1903) and in the Botanische Zeitung, LXI. (1903), section II. pp. 
311-314. Unfortunately, with few T exceptions, this eminent botanist 
does not indicate precisely nor in detail which of my opinions he 
considers as unacceptable, and in his remarks on Gnetaceze, I am 
convinced that his criticism is not well founded. In external 
characters, as in anatomical structure, the Gnetaceae approach 
very closely to certain Loranthaceae, and to Myzodcndrum, and 
there is much evidence that they belong to this cycle of affinity, 
if only we presume that the so-called nucellus of Gnetum repre¬ 
sents not a single ovule, but a placenta with several ovules, as 
Treub has indicated in some Loranthaceae. 
The most striking point in the reception of my system is the 
silence of Professor Engler. I am much disappointed that a 
scientific journal which is a recognized centre for systematic 
botany and plant-geography has been unable to discuss in extenso 
a new system, which is exceptional by the complexity of principles 
applied in it. But in the volumes of the falirbucher since 1902, 
there is no mention of my publications, and the same is the case in 
the monographs of the “ PfLanzenreich.” In Kohne’s Monograph of 
Lythraceas (Oct. 1903) and in Winkler’s Monograph of Betalaceae 
(June 1904) my publications treating the same topics are neglected. 
Only Buchenau in an appendix to his monograph of Alismataceae 
refers to Miss E. Sargant’s and my own suggestions on the mutual 
relations of Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons. 
