Abstract
IN his presidential address to the Linnean Society on May 27, Dr. A. B. Rendle referred to the work of the Society during the year. An interesting feature of certain of the discussions has been the tendency to get back to first principles or definitions and to discover that that which we had regarded as definite is after all vague. For example, in one of the discussions various authorities were quoted in support of different ideas as to the conception of the term carpel. Morphological terms originate in a, desire to express certain conceptions, limited or general, and morphologists are apt to find themselves in the same position as the present-day systematist in typifying species. In the matter of definitions a meaning may be attached to a term which the originator never meant to convey; moreover, a vague use of terms may engender vague ideas of relationship. The advisability of the inclusion of the seed-like organs of Pteridosperms under the definition of seeds was also questioned. What is the degree of importance of the differences between the modern seed, which has priority for the use of the term, and the organ characteristic of Pteridosperms? Has the latter advanced beyond the gametophyte stage? Does the fact that postponement of embryo-formation until after the freeing of the seed occurs, for example in Cycads, meet the objection? This absence of an embryo may be called negative evidence; but is it not rather the absence of the criterion of the normal seed, which is an arrangement for the protection of the new sporophyte during a period of rest or transport? The phases in the life-history preceding and accompanying germination must have been widely different in the two great groups.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
The Need for Precision in Botanical Terminology. Nature 118, 103–104 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1038/118103b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/118103b0