105 
On the TERMINOLOGY of the REPRODUCTIVE 
ORGANS of PLANTS. 
By R. J. Harvey Grsson, M.A., F.R.S.E., 
LECTURER ON BOTANY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LIVERPOOL. 
[Read 10th December, 1887.] 
PROBABLY one of the most important of the many results 
which have followed from the acceptance by biologists of the 
doctrine of evolution has been the closer union of the two 
sub-sciences of Botany and Zoology. For I am disposed 
to think that those who, lke Dr. Woodward,* consider 
that ‘‘ Biology replaces in name only, without any sub- 
stantial gain, the hitherto better known sciences of 
Botany and Zoology,” have failed to grasp that that union 
in name is the outward sign of the adoption of a unity of 
treatment in the investigations into the morphology and 
physiology of plants and animals, a step, I think, parallel 
to, and naturally following from, the discovery by Max 
Schultzé of the identity of Dujardin’s ‘‘sarcode”’ with 
Von Mohl’s ‘‘protoplasm.”’ Will any one affirm that the 
employment of one term to designate ‘‘the physical basis 
of life’? in animal and plant has not been a substantial 
gain ? 
The science of Biology is thus of comparatively recent 
growth, although the term has itself long been in use to 
signify the conditions of life and habits of an organism, 
whether plant or animal. Now, however, when we know 
that plants and animals are not only built fundamentally 
on the same great principles and formed out of the same 
* Presidential Address to the Geological Section of the British Association 
Mecting of 1887, 
