2 
Review. 
is not always fair to those he criticises, occasionally misrepresents 
them, and is not infrequently slightly irritating to the reader, by 
reason of his air of Olympian detachment. 
The first thesis is that just as the higher land plants have 
inherited their fundamental cell mechanism from primeval 
phytoplankton, so they have inherited the external form and 
segmentation of their ^bodies and the most fundamental tissue 
differentiations from phytobenthon, i.e. from fixed, branching 
and leaf-bearing seaweeds, with radial organization, “ Fibonacci ” 
sequence of members and apical meristem. The author 
regards as inconceivable the idea that land plants have 
produced an equipment so parallel to that of marine algae, 
as leaf and stem, parenchymatous tissues and radial 
organisation, in response to conditions so different from an aquatic 
environment as those of subaerial life. As a working hypothesis 
of evolution “ the antithetic theory,” he says, “ is better than nothing 
at all; and for fifty years 1 it has dominated the botanical outlook 
(1851-1908) and has afforded an effective stimulus to research. 
The only effective criticism is the establishment of an alternative 
point of view; and those to whom the surprising adventures of an 
intercalated ‘ post-sexual phase * may not appeal, are naturally 
expected to provide something more rational.” There have been 
many to whom these “ surprising adventures ” have made no 
appeal, nor have there been wanting attempts to present “ an 
alternative point of view”—one was published in this Journal in 
1907—though no doubt they were poor things beside the 
magnificent sweep of Mr. Church’s exposition. 
The author then proceeds to explain how the antithetic theory 
of alternation was rooted in the course of development of botanical 
research in the middle of the nineteenth century. “ To 
Hofmeister, working at Leipsig and Heidelberg, in ignorance of 
the Sea, the progression of plant life was viewed from the 
standpoint of the freshwater pond, and in the light of a transition 
from the medium of fresh water and seasonal vegetation to the 
arboreal vegetation of the North Temperate zone, as displayed in 
Central Europe.” The contempt for marine algae shown by so 
eminent a biologist as Schleiden in 1849 is well brought out by a 
1 Though in a certain sense broadly true this statement is open to 
criticism. Hofmeister’s doctrine was not specifically antithetic. The 
antithetic doctrine began with Celakovsky (1868), and gained no widespread 
acceptance till Bower’s paper of 1890 gave it a definitely evolutionary 
significance. Nor has the antithetic theory dominated the botanical 
outlook unchallenged. Cf. Scott (1896). 
