NN) liwiwilee OCA Nits itt iN Mt i f i i i \ Anal AND == pues ish i Ny ieee ae E722: eS AY iN Neh G TSAR Es AAD AL AES hall WH NCAR URRS yin WN, ae =e = Beis) tei merhew bance a aia ee AL 23 = e; =o Hit MWe oa rH iia Ls Me ’ te : ae eM rt Ag hs iis De inn m sige i ia ae 4 re : i: fe rhabnraeyts am bs ite beh iW oo eubeeeran peer a Si) i atch pak i ee “tt Halos Vipin ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY The natural history of plants, their for Cornell University The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www. archive.org/details/cu31924011933219 PLATE I. SWARM-SPORES AND ZYGOSPORES. FORMS OF CHLOROPHYLL- BODIES. Printed from the originals by the BIBLIOGRAPHISCHE | ~ PLATE J. a—d e—h SWARMSPORES AND ZYGOSPORES. FORMS OF CHLOROPHYLL-BODIES. Development of swarmspores in the tubular cells of Vaucheria clavata. Swarmspores and resting-cells of “red-snow” (Sphaerella nivalis), mixed with pollen-grains of Pines. Forms of Chlorophyll in cells of Desmidiex (i. Closterium Leibleinii ; k. Peniwm interrupium). Formation of zygospores and spiral arrangement of Chlorophyll-bodies in cells of Spirogyra arcta. Star-shaped Chlorophyll-bodies in cells of Zygnaema pectinatum. Glococapsa sanguinea. Protonema of Schistostega osmundacea. Transverse section of the foliage-leaf of Cress. r Transverse section of the leaf of the Passion-fiower. Relative positions of laticiferous tubes and palisade-cells in the leaf of a Spurge (Euphorbia Myrsinites). All the figures greatly magnified. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PLANTS THEIR FORMS, GROWTH, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION FROM THE GERMAN OF ANTON KERNER von MARILAUN PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA BY F. W. OLIVER, M.A., D8. QUAIN PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF MARIAN BUSK, BSc. anp MARY F. EWART, BSc. WITH ABOUT 1000 ORIGINAL WOODCUT ILLUSTRATIONS AND SIXTEEN PLATES IN COLOURS HALF-VOLUME IL NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1895 ® PLATE I. SWARM-SPORES AND ZYGOSPORES. Bm w bh et — Om co poe be NO oT wR wh CONTENTS OF HALF-VOLUME L LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. ForMS oF CHLOROPHYLL-BODIES, PAGE Frontis. 374 » II. Insecrrvorous PLAnts: SUNDEW AND BUTTERWORT, to face 142 » I. Tropica, EprpHytes IN CEYLON, Illustrations in the Teat—Fig. 1 to Fig. 99. INTRODUCTION. The Study of Plants in Ancient and Modern Times, THE LIVING PRINCIPLE IN PLANTS. . Protoplasts considered as the Seat of Life, . Movements of Protoplasts, . Secretions and Constructive Activity of Protoplasts, . Communication of Protoplasts with one another and with the outer world, ABSORPTION OF NUTRIMENT. . Introduction, - Absorption of Inorganic Substances, . Absorption of Organic Matter from decaying Plants and Animals, . Absorption of Nutriment by Parasitic Plants, . Absorption, of Water, . Symbiosis, Changes in the Soil incident to the Nutrition of Plants, CoNDUCTION OF Foon. . Mechanics of the Movement of the raw Food-sap, . Regulation of Transpiration, . Prevention of Excessive Transpiration, ; Transpiration during various Seasons of the Year. Transpiration of Lianes, Conduction of Food-gases to the Places of Consumption, FORMATION OF ORGANIC MATTER FROM THE ABSORBED INORGANIC Foon. . Chlorophyll and Chlorophyll-granules, ~ The Green Leaves, 222 371 396 THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PLANTS. INTRODUCTION. THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND IN MODERN TIMES. Plants considered from the point of view of utility.—Description and classification of plants.— Doctrine of metamorphosis and speculations of nature-philosophy.—Scientific method based on the history of development.—Objects of botanical research at the present day. PLANTS CONSIDERED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF UTILITY. SomME years ago I rambled over the mountain district of North Italy in the lovely month of May. In a small sequestered valley, the slopes of which were densely clad with mighty oaks and tall shrubs, I found the flora developed in all its beauty. There, in full bloom, was the laburnum and manna-ash, besides broom and sweet-brier, and countless smaller shrubs and grasses. From every bush came the song of the nightingale; and the whole glorious perfection of a southern spring morning filled me with delight. Speaking, as we rested, to my guide, an Italian peasant, I expressed the pleasure I experienced in this wealth of laburnum blossoms and chorus of nightingales. Imagine the rude shock to my feelings on his replying briefly that the reason why the laburnum was so luxuriant was that its foliage was poisonous, and goats did not eat it; and that though no doubt there were plenty of nightingales, there were scarcely any hares left. For him, and I daresay for thousands of others, this valley clothed with flowers was nothing more than a pasture-ground, and nightingales were merely things to be shot. This little occurrence, however, seems to me characteristic of the way in which the great majority of people look upon the world of plants and animals. To their minds animals are game, trees are timber and fire-wood, herbs are vegetables (in the limited sense), or perhaps medicine or provender for domestic animals, whilst flowers are pretty for decoration. Turn in what direction I would, in every country where I have travelled for botanical purposes, the questions asked by the inhabitants were always the same. Everywhere I had to explain whether the plants I sought and gathered were poisonous or not; whether they were efficacious as cures for this or that illness; and by what signs the medicinal or otherwise Vou. I. ; 2 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. useful plants were to be recognized and distinguished from the rest. And the attitude of the great mass of country folk in times past was the same as at the present day. All along anxiety for a livelihood, the need of the individual to satisfy his own hunger, the interests of the family, the provision of food for domestic animals, have been the factors that have first led men to classify plants into the nutritious and the poisonous, into those that are pleasant to the taste and those that are unpleasant, and have induced them to make attempts at cultivation, and to observe the various phenomena of plant-life. No less powerful as an incentive to the study of herbs, roots, and seeds, and to the minute comparison of similar forms and the determination of their differences, was the hope and belief that the higher powers had endowed particular plants with healing properties. In ancient Greece there was a special guild, the “ Rhizotomoi,” whose members collected and prepared such roots and herbs as were considered to be curative, and either sold them themselves or caused them to be sold by apothecaries. Through the labours of these Rhizotomoi, added to those of Greek, Roman, and Arabic physicians, and of gardeners, vine-growers, and farmers, a mass of information concerning the plant-world was acquired, which for a long period stood as botanical science. As late as the sixteenth century plants were looked upon from a purely utilitarian point of view, not only by the masses but also by very many professed scholars; and in most of the books of that time we find the medicinal properties, and the general utility of the plants selected for descrip- tion and discrimination, occupying a conspicuous position and treated in an exhaustive manner. Just as men lived in the firm belief that human destinies depended upon the stars, so they clung to the notion that everything upon the earth was created for the sake of mankind; and, in particular, that in every plant there were forces lying dormant which, if liberated, would conduce either to the welfare or to the injury of man. Points which might serve as bases for the discovery of these secrets of nature were eagerly sought for. People imagined they discerned magic in many plants, and even believed that they were able to trace in the resemblance of certain leaves, flowers, and fruits to parts of the human body, an indication, emanating from supernatural powers, of the manner in which the organ in question was intended to affect the human constitution. The similarity in shape between a particular foliage-leaf and the liver did duty for a sign that the leaf was capable of successful application in cases of hepatic disease, and the fact of a blossom being heart-shaped must mean that it would cure cardiac com- plaints. Thus arose the so-called doctrine of Signatures, which, brought to its highest development by the Swiss alchemist Bombastus Paracelsus (1493-1541), played a great part in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and still survives at the present day in the mania for nostrums. The inclination of the masses is now, as it was centuries ago, in favour of supernatural and mysterious rather than simple and natural interpretations; and a Bombastus Paracelsus would still find no lack of credulous followers. In truth, the great bulk of mankind regard Botany as subservient to medicine and agriculture, they look at it from the purely THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 3 utilitarian point of view in a manner not essentially different from that of two hundred—or even two thousand—years ago, and it may well be a long time before they rise above this idea. In addition to the botanical knowledge thus initiated by the necessities of life, a second avenue leading to the same goal was early established by man’s sense of beauty. The first effect of this was limited to the employment of wild flowers and foliage for purposes of ornament and decoration. Later on, it led to the cultivation of the more showy plants in gardens, and ultimately to the arts of gardening and horticulture, which at different periods and in different countries have passed through such various phases, corresponding to the standards of the beautiful which have prevailed. THE DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PLANTS. A third path leading to botanical knowledge springs from the impulse which actuates those who are endowed with a keen perception of form to investigate structural differences down to their most minute characteristics. Workers in this field arrange and classify all distinct forms according to their external resemblances, give them names appropriate to their position and importance, catalogue them, and keep up the register when once it has been started. Many people possess, in addi- tion, the remarkable taste for collecting, which causes them to find pleasure in merely accumulating and possessing enormous numbers of specimens of the particu- lar objects on which their fancy is fixed. This tendency of the human mind has played a very important part in the history of botany. The first traces of it can be ascribed with certainty to a period long before the commencement of our era; for such descriptions and other notes as are contained in the Natural History of Plants, written by Theophrastus about the year 300 B.c., are founded, for the most part, on the observations and experiments of “Rhizotomoi,” physicians and agriculturists, and it is obvious from the text of the book that in some cases those authorities did seek out plants, and learn to distinguish them for their own sakes, and not solely for their economic or medicinal value. At the time of the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages, it is true, no one troubled himself about plants other than those known to be in some way useful. But there was a revival of the practice of hunting for plants for the purpose of describing and enumerating all distinguishable forms, at that great epoch when the nations of the West began to study the treasures of Greek thought, endeavouring to adopt the point of view of antiquity, and to harmonize their own circumstances with it. It was at this same period that art too shook itself free from the tradi- tions of the Middle Ages, and became actuated by a new ideal based on the study of the antique; but science, particularly natural science, has as good a claim as art to regard that memorable time as its period of renaissance. Although the ancient Greek writings on natural history, to which people turned with such youthful enthusiasm in the fifteenth century, could not satisfy their thirst for 4 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. knowledge, yet there is no doubt that, as in art, the effect was to stimulate and reform; and that this study led up to the source, so long forgotten, whence the ancients had themselves drawn their knowledge, that is, to the direct investigation of nature, which has invariably given to every branch of human knowledge new and pregnant life. As regards botanical knowledge in particular, the study of old Greek writings on the part of western nations in both Northern and Southern Europe had the immediate effect of instituting an eager search for all the different kinds of indigenous plants; and, besides arousing a passion for investigation, it evoked un- tiring industry in this pursuit, the results of which preserved in a number of bulky herbals still excite our wonder and respect. If these folios, dating for the most part from the first half of the sixteenth century, are perused in the hope of their reveal- ing some guiding principle as a basis for the arrangement of the subject, the reader will no doubt be obliged to lay them aside unsatisfied. The plants were described and discussed just as the authors happened to come across them; and it is only here and there that we find a feeble attempt to range together and make groups of nearly-allied species. Only cursory attention was paid to the facts of geographical distribution. Plants native to the soil, herbs which flowered in gardens and had been reared from seed purchased from itinerant vendors of antidotes, and plants whose fruits were brought to Europe as curiosities from the New World recently discovered—all these were jumbled together in a confused medley. The whole endeavour of the time was directed to the enumeration and description of all such things as possess the power of producing green foliage and maturing fruit under the sun’s quickening rays. Owing to the fact that researches were then limited to the native soil of the student, most of the botanical authors of that day had but dark inklings of the extent to which the floras of various latitudes and areas differ. They assumed that plants of the Mediterranean shores, which had been described centuries before by Theophrastus or Dioscorides or Pliny, were necessarily the same as those of their own more inclement countries. The German “Fathers of Botany” (Brunfels, born about 1495, died 1534; Bock, 1498-1554; Fuchs, 1501-1566, are the best known) applied the old Greek and Latin names without scruple to the species growing in their own localities. They were so firmly convinced of the identity of the German, Greek, and Italian floras that even the numerous inconsistencies occurring in the descriptions did not disconcert them, or prevent them from discussing at great length whether a particular name was intended by Theophrastus and Dioscorides to indicate this or that plant. It was by slow degrees that botanists first began to abandon these fruitless debates concerning the Greek and Latin names of plants, with which it had been the custom to fill so many pages of the herbals. Step by step they became conscious that although the yellow pages of the ancient books deserved all gratitude for the stimulating influence they had exercised, yet the green book of nature should be set above them. This led to their devoting themselves entirely to direct researches in the subject of their native floras. The THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 5 herbal of Hieronymus Bock, which appeared in 1546, and in which “the herbs growing in German countries are described from long and sure experience,” contains a passage treating of the controversy of the day as to whether the Latin name Erica was applicable to the German Heath or not; and in the midst of the discus- sion the author expresses the opinion that “the plants we know best were the least known to the Latins;” and at last he exclaims: “Be our heath the same as Erica or not, it is in any case a pretty and sturdy little shrub, beset with numerous brown rounded branches, which are clothed all over with small green leaves; and its appearance is like that of the sweet-smelling Lavender Cotton.” And again in a number of other places, after making lengthy philological statements relating to the old names, he ends by losing patience and declaring that the proper thing would be to lay aside all disputes concerning this nomenclature. At length a Belgian, Charles de l’Ecluse (1526-1609), whose name was latinized into Clusius, emancipated himself entirely from the hair-splitting verbal contro- versies of the day. He was also the first to abandon the utilitarian standpoint; and in his extensive work, which appeared at the end of the sixteenth century, he was guided solely by the desire to become acquainted with every flowering thing. He therefore endeavoured to distinguish, describe, and where possible to draw the various forms of plants, to cultivate them, and to preserve them in a dried condition. It was just at that time that collections of dried plants began to be made. Such a collection was at first called a “hortus siccus,” and later on a “herbarium.” All museums of natural history were forthwith furnished with them. Moreover, Clusius, actuated by the wish to see with his own eyes what the vegetation on the other side of the mountains looked like, was the first man to travel for the purpose of botanizing. In order to extend his knowledge of plants he roamed over Europe from the sierras of Spain to the borders of Hungary, and from the sea-coast to the highlands of the Tyrol. Journeys of this kind in pursuit of botanical know- ledge were by degrees extended to wider and wider limits, and thus an abundance of material was brought together from all latitudes and from every quarter of the globe. An immense number of isolated observations were accumulated in this way, till, at length, in the first decades of the eighteenth century, the desirability of sifting and arranging this chaotic mass became urgent. When, therefore, the Swedish naturalist Linnzus (1707-1778), by the exercise of unparalleled industry, mastered in a fabulously short space of time the detailed results of centuries of labour, and afforded a general survey of all this scattered material, he obtained universal recognition. Linneus introduced short names for the various species in place of the cumbrous older designations, and showed how to distinguish the species by means of concise descriptions. For this purpose he marked out the different parts of a plant as root, stem, leaf, bract, calyx, corolla, stamens, pistil, fruit, and seeds. Again, he distinguished particular forms of those organs, as, for instance, scapes, haulms, and peduncles as forms of stems, and in addition also the parts of each organ, such as filaments, anthers, and pollen in the stamens, and ovary, style, and stigma in the pistil; and to each one of these objects he assigned a technical name 6 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. (terminus). With the help of the botanical terminology thus formulated it became possible not only to abridge the specific descriptions, but also to recognize species from such descriptions, and to determine what name had been given them by botanists, and to what group they belonged. Linnzus selected as a basis of classification in the “System” established by him the characteristics of the various parts of the flower. In this system the number, relative length, cohesion, and disposition of the stamens formed the ground of division into “Classes.” Within each Class, “Orders” were then differentiated according to the nature of the pistil, especially the number of styles; and each Order was again subdivided into more narrowly defined groups, which received the name of “Genera.” To the 23 classes of Flowering Plants (Phanerogamia) Linnwas added as a 24th Class Flowerless Plants (Cryptogamia), which were divided into several groups (Ferns, Mosses, Alge, and Fungi) in respect of their general appearance and mode of occurrence. This system took immediate possession of the civilized world. Englishmen, Germans, and Italians now worked in unison as faithful disciples of Linneus. Even laymen studied the Linnzan botany with enthusiasm; and it was recommended, especially to ladies, as a harmless pastime, not overtaxing to the mind. In France Rousseau delivered lectures on botany to a circle of educated ladies; whilst even Goethe experienced a strong attraction to the “loveliest of the sciences,” as botany was called in that day. Linneus had introduced for the first time the name “flora” to signify a catalogue of the plants of a more or less circumscribed district. He had himself written a flora of Lapland and Sweden, and by doing so had stimulated others to undertake the compilation of similar catalogues; so that by the end of the 18th century floras of England, Piedmont, Carniola, Austria, &c., had been produced. By this means a certain perfection was attained in that field of botany which has only in view the examination of the fully-developed external forms of plants, together with the distinguishing, describing, naming, and grouping them, and the enumeration of species indigenous to particular regions. Later on, unfortunately, botanists lost themselves in a maze of dull systematizing. They either contented themselves with collecting, preparing, and arranging herbaria, or else devoted their energies to endless debates over such questions, for instance, as whether a plant, that some author had distinguished from others and described, deserved to rank as a species, or should’ be reckoned as a variety dependent on its habitat or on local conditions of temperature, light, and moisture. They took delight in now including a group of forms as varieties of a single species, now dividing some species as described by a particular author into several other species. For this purpose they did not rely upon the only sure method, the determination by cultural experiment of the fact of the constancy or variability of the form in question; nor did they, in general, adhere to any consistent principle to guide them in this amusement. Aberrations of this kind constituted, however, no serious barrier to progress, On the contrary, the passion for collecting continued to extend its range. The THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 7 vegetation of the remotest corners of the earth was ransacked by travelling botanists without any material advantage being gained, though they not infre- quently ran considerable risk to their health, and sometimes sacrificed their lives. As one generation succeeded another thousands of students of the “scientia ama- bilis” made their appearance in every country. Swept along by the prevailing current of thought they devoted themselves to the examination of native and foreign floras, or to a detailed study of the most insignificant sections of the vegetable kingdom. Those who are not under the spell of this passion cannot conceive the joy experienced by the discoverer of a hitherto unknown moss. To such it is inexplicable how anyone can devote the labour of half a lifetime to a classification of Algz or Lichens, or to a monograph of the bramble-tribe or orchids. The pro- gress achieved eventually in this department of botany is best appreciated when the wide difference in the numbers of species described in botanical works of different periods is considered. Theophrastus in his Natural History of Plants (about 300 B.c.) mentions about 500 species, and Pliny (78 a.D.) rather more than 1000; whereas, by the time of Linnzus, about 10,000 were known; and now the number must be all but 200,000. It should be remarked, however, that half the plants described since Linnzous lived fall into the category of Cryptogams, or non- flowering plants, the examination of which was first rendered possible by the wide- spread use of the microscope in recent times. The microscope led also to discoveries concerning the internal architecture of plants. A faint attempt in this direction, made 200 years ago, had died away without leaving any trace behind; but at the commencement of this century the “inward construction of plants” was studied all the more eagerly by means of the microscope. In buildings belonging to different styles of architecture it is not only the forms of the wings, stories, rooms, and gables that differ, but also and in no less degree those of the columns, pilasters, and decorations. The same is the case with plants. They possess chambers at different levels, vaults, and passages. They have pipes running through them, and beams and buttresses, some massive and some slender, to support them. The pieces of which they are built vary in size, and their walls are sculptured in all kinds of ways. It was the business of the vegetable anatomist to dissect plants, to look into all these structures under the microscope, to describe the various component parts as well as the ground-plan and elevation of the plant-edifice as a whole; and to name the different forms of struc- ture after the manner of Linnzus when he invented terms for the different forms of stems and leaves, and for the several parts of the flower and fruit. DOCTRINE OF METAMORPHOSIS AND SPECULATIONS OF NATURE-PHILOSOPHY. Side by side with this immense volume of research, which was directed to the separation, description, and synoptical arrangement of mature forms only, there arose about the year 1600 another school which considered vegetable forms from 8 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. the point of view of their life-history, and endeavoured to trace them back to their origin. Tracing the development, from one stage to another, of all the different species, of the multitudinous forms of leaves and flowers, and of the various kinds of cells and tissues, the student of this school has to detect identity in multiplicity, to show that the connection between forms which have arisen from one another is in accordance with fixed laws, and to express those laws in definite formule. The attention of botanists was in the first place directed to the wonderful series of changes in the form of the leaf which occur in all phanerogamic (.e. flowering) plants as the delicate seedling gradually turns into a flowering shoot. At the circum- ference of the stem which constitutes the axis of the plant, foliar structures are produced at successive intervals. All these structures are essentially the same; but they exhibit a continuous modification of their shape, arrangement, size, and colour, according to their relative altitudes upon the stem. To discover the causes of this structural variation was an attractive problem, and very diverse theories were suggested for its solution. The earliest explanation, which was given by the Italian botanist Cesalpino in 1583, is founded rather on superficial analogies and remote resemblances existing between tissues than on careful observation. According to this theory the stem is composed of a central medulla highly endowed with vitality, and surrounded by concentric layers of tissue, those namely of the wood, the bast, and the cortex. Each of the foliar structures put forth from the axis is supposed to originate in one of the above-named tissues, the idea being that the green foliage- leaf and calyx grew out from the cortical layer, the corolla from the bast, the stamens from the wood, and the carpels from the medulla. It was believed, also, that the outer envelope of a fruit arose from the rind of the fruit-stalk, the seed- coats from the wood, and the central part of the seed from the medulla. Early in the eighteenth century there came to be connected with this theory the doctrine of so-called “ prolepsis,” which was founded on more accurate comparative observations. It was thought that the medulla of the stem breaks through the rind at particular spots to form at each a bud, which subsequently grows out into a side branch. Owing to this lateral pressure of the medulla the ascending nutrient sap becomes arrested beneath the rudimentary bud, and, in consequence, the cortex develops under the bud into a foliage-leaf. In the bud the different parts of the future annual shoot are already shadowed forth in stages one above the other; and each is produced always by the one beneath it. As soon as vegetative activity is resumed after the expiration of the winter rest, the bud sprouts. If only that part of it develops which constitutes the first year’s rudiment, a shoot furnished with foliage-leaves is produced. But the embryonic structures belonging to succeeding years, which are concealed in the bud, may also be stimulated to development; and when this happens, these premature products do not appear as foliage-leaves, but in more or less altered forms as bracts, sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels. If no such anticipatory activity has been excited, the rudiment which in the previous case would have developed into a bract does not appear till the following year, and then as a foliage-leaf; whilst that which would have formed a calyx in the first THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 9 year lies dormant till the third year, when it too emerges simply as a leaf. This transformation of the leaves, or metamorphosis as Linneus called it, is, therefore, the result of anticipation; and it was assumed by the Linnean school that the cause of this metamorphosis or hastened development was a local decrease in the quantity of nutriment. The idea was, that in consequence of the limited supply of sap the incipient leaves were not able to attain to the size of foliage-leaves, but remained / Se if) | nel? e . - : IVers Fig. 1.—Seedlings with Cotyledons and Foliage-leaves. rn 1Cytisus Laburnum. 2 Koelreuteria paniculata. % Acer platanoides. rudimentary, as is the case with many bracts; and further, that the axis was no longer capable of elongating, so that the leaves proceeding from it remained close together, became coherent, and thus formed the calyx. The supporters of this explanation relied particularly on the experience of gardeners, that a plant in good soil with a liberal supply of nutriment is apt to produce leafy shoots rather than flowers; whereas, if the same plant is transferred to a poorer soil, where its food is limited, it develops flowers in abundance. But yet a third attempt was made to explain this process of transformation, by the theory that parts which are identical so far as their origin is concerned, subse- quently receive the stamp of distinct foliar organs. The diversity in the develop- ment of parts, originally alike, was supposed to depend on a filtration of the nutrient 10 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. sap, the idea being that identical primordial leaves issuing from the axis of a ak cular plant were fashioned with more and more delicacy as the sap became clarified and refined in its passage through the vessels. This explanation of metamorphosis was first given by Goethe (1790) in a treatise which was much discussed, and which exercised a most important influence in initiating researches of a similar nature. Goethe’s interpretation of metamorphosis may be briefly reproduced as follows. A plant is built up gradually from a fundamental organ—the leaf—which issues from the node of astem. First of all, the organs which are called seed-leaves or cotyledons (tig. 1) develop on the young plant as it germinates from the seed; they proceed from the lowest node of the stem, and are frequently subterranean. They are of comparatively small size, are simple and unsegmented, have no trace of indentation, and appear for the most part as thick, whitish lobes, which are, according to Goethe’s expression, closely and uniformly packed with a raw material, and are only coarsely organized. Goethe explains these leaves as being of the lowest grade in the evolu- tionary scale. After them and above them the foliage leaves develop at the suc- ceeding nodes of the stem; they are more expanded both in length and breadth; their margins are often notched, and their surfaces divided into lobes, or even com- posed of secondary leaflets; and they are coloured green. “They have attained to a higher degree of development and refinement, for which they are indebted to the light and air.” Still further up, there next appears the third stage in foliar evolu- tion. The structure called by Linnzus the calyx is again to be traced back to the leaf. It is a collection of individual organs of the same fundamental type, but modified in a characteristic manner. The close-set leaves, which proceed from nodes of the stem at what is, in a certain sense, the third story of the plant-edifice as a whole, and which constitute the calyx, are contracted, and have but little variety as compared with the outspread foliage-leaves, On the fourth rung of the ladder by which the leaf ascends in its effort to perfect itself, appears the structure named in the Linnean terminology the corolla. It consists, like the calyx, only of several leaves grouped round a centre. If a con- traction has taken place in the case of the calyx, we have now once more an expan- sion. The leaves which compose the corolla are usually larger than those of the calyx. They are, besides, more delicate and tender, and are brightly coloured; and Goethe, whose mode of expression is here preserved as far as possible, supposes them to be filled also with purer and more subtle juices. He conceives that these juices are in some manner filtered in the lower leaves and in the vessels of the lower region of the stem, and so reach the upper stories in a more perfect condition. A more refined sap must then, he says, give rise to a softer and more delicate tissue (fig. 2). Above the corolla and at the fifth stage of development there follows the group of stamens, structures which, though not answering to the ordinary conception of leaves, are yet to be regarded again simply as such. In the circle of the corolla the leaves were expanded, and conspicuous owing to their colour; on the other hand, in the stamens they are contracted to an extreme degree, being almost fila- mentous in part. These leaves appear to have reached a high degree of perfection, THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 11 and in the parts of the stamens termed anthers “ pollen-grains” are developed “in which an extremely pure sap is stored.” Adjoining these pollen-producing leaves, Fig. 2.—_Metamorphoses of Leaves as exhibited by the Poppy. 1Germinating plant with cotyledons. 2 and 8 The same plant further developed and with foliage-leaves; in ® the cotyledons and lowest foliage-leaves are already withered. ‘The same plant with a flower-bud showing the closed sepals. 5 The bud open and with petals, stamens, and carpels (pistil) developed. where contraction has reached its extreme limit, is the sixth and last story, which is composed of leaves, once more less closely-set, and exhibiting a final expansion on the part of the plant. These are the carpels, which surround the highest part 12 THE STUDY OF PLANTS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. of the stem and inclose the seeds, the latter being developed from the tip of the stem. Thus the plant accomplishes its life-history in six stages. It is built up of leaves, the “intrinsic identity” of which cannot be doubted, although they assume extremely various shapes corresponding to the six strides towards perfection. In this process of transformation or metamorphosis of the leaf there are three alter- nate contractions and expansions, whilst each stage is more perfect than the one next below it. Whilst seeking to explain metamorphosis in this manner, and endeavouring, with greater per- spicacity than all his predecessors and contem- poraries, “to reduce to one simple universal prin- ciple all the multifarious phenomena of the glorious garden of the world,” Goethe conceived the notion of a typical plant, an ideal, the realization of which is achieved in nature by means of a mani- fold variation of individual parts. This abstract notion of a plant’s development with its six stages corresponding to “three wave-crests” or expan- sions (Leaf, Petal, Carpel) and “three wave- troughs” or contractions (Cotyledon, Sepal, Sta- men) is expressed graphically in figure 3. It still holds its ground at the present day under the name of Goethe’s “ Urpflanze,” and the credit of its invention is entirely his. But it is not quite right to claim for Goethe, in addition, the title of