On the limits of the use of the terms ‘Phyllome’ and ‘Caulome.’
Abstract
Regius Professor of Botany in the University of Glasgow. N the 'Practical Course of Instruction in Botany,' Part II, page i, I appended a foot-note to the description of the leafy shoot of Polytrichum commune, which runs as follows:â'Though the terms "stem" and "leaf" are used here, it must be distinctly borne in mind that the members thus named, being parts of the oophore generation, are not homologous with, but at most only analogous to the stem and leaf in vascular plants, which are parts of the sporophore generation.' Thinking that this point would be generally admitted, no further explanation was given, and it was with some surprise that I found this passage objected to by certain of my colleagues. Since the point is not universally agreed to, and since this passage stands in a somewhat dogmatic form in a text-book designed for the use of students, the best course will be to state more fully the grounds upon which the statement is based. Moreover, there is at present a wave of what may be called' morphological scepticism' passing over the minds of many in this country. Some think the distinction of the categories of members is not