ON THAT BRANCH OF BOTANY CALLED MORPHOLOGY. 261 
Seeds roundish, inclining downwards, and alternately placed into the 
dissepiment. Orders two, viz. 
Siliculosa; comprehending such plants whose pericarpium is a 
silicula. 
Siliquosa; comprehending such plants whose pericarpium is a 
siliqua. (See H. R. vol. ii. p. 168.) 
(To be continued.) 
ON THAT BRANCH OF BOTANY CALLED MORPHOLOGY. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HORTICULTURAL REGISTER. 
Sir, —The science of botany has received many improvements and 
additions, within these last twenty or thirty years ; and it appears, the 
more closely it is studied, clearer views of the organisation and elements 
of plants are acquired, and, consequently, systematic as well as physio¬ 
logical botany is becoming better understood and more generally 
known. 
One of the newest, as well as one of the most puzzling branches 
of the science is called Morphology, or the metamorphosis of plants. 
Not that different plants can be changed or transformed into each other, 
but that their different organs are transformable into each other, that 
is, leaves are always transformed into involucrums, bractes, hybernaeles, 
calyx, petals, stamens, seed-vessels, seeds and fruit; and moreover, if 
any of these be first formed, they may, under certain circumstances, be 
changed back to their normal, or most natural state. By the bye, it is 
difficult to say which is, or which is not, the normal state; because as 
they may be either one or other, that is, either common leaves or petals, 
or pistils, and are either of these as circumstances rule, it is impossible 
to say which is their natural state. 
That there are many instances of what are called floral members being 
changed into leaf-like expansions is well known ; and there are a few 
instances among highly cultivated plants, which show a disposition of 
some of the upper leaves assuming a petal-like form and colour; as is 
sometimes observed on the stem leaf of a tulip. These instances are, 
however, very rare, and certainly cannot be called a normal develop¬ 
ment of the plant. 
This doctrine was first suggested, it is said, by the celebrated 
Linnaeus; and after being neglected for many years has lately been 
strenuously embraced by a few eminent botanists, whose concurrence has 
