DIFFICULTIES OF IDENTIFICATION.
In dealing with the structure of Palaeozoic plants, we shall be under constant obligation to the splendid series of memoirs from the pen of Prof. Williamson[34]. As the writer of a sympathetic obituary notice has well said: “In his fifty-fifth year he began the great series of memoirs which mark the culminating point of his scientific activity, and which will assure to him, for all time, in conjunction with Brongniart, the honourable title of a founder of modern Palaeobotany[35].” If we look back through a few decades, and peruse the pages of Lindley and Hutton’s classic work[36] on the Fossil flora of Great Britain, a book which is indispensable to fossil botanists, and read the description of such a genus as Sigillaria or Stigmaria; or if we extend our retrospect to an earlier period and read Woodward’s description of an unusually good specimen of a Lepidodendron, and finally take stock of our present knowledge of such plants, we realise what enormous progress has been made in palaeobotanical studies. Lindley and Hutton, in the preface to the first volume of the Flora, claim to have demonstrated that both Sigillaria and Stigmaria were plants with “the highest degree of organization, such as Cactaeae, or Euphorbiaceae, or even Asclepiadeae”; Woodward describes his Lepidodendron (Fig. 1) as “an ironstone, black and flat, and wrought over one surface very finely, with a strange cancellated work[37].” Thanks largely to the work of Binney, Carruthers, Hooker, Williamson, and to the labours of continental botanists, we are at present almost as familiar with Lepidodendron and several other Coal-Measure genera as with the structure of a recent forest tree. While emphasizing the value of the microscopic methods of investigation, we are not disposed to take such a hopeless view of the possibilities of the determination of fossil forms, in which no internal structure is preserved, as some writers have expressed. The preservation of minute structure is to be greatly desired from the point of view of the modern palaeobotanist, but he must recognise the necessity of making such use as he can of the numberless examples of plants of all ages, which occur only in the form of structureless casts or impressions.
Fig. 1. Four leaf-cushions of a Lepidodendron. Drawn from a specimen in the Woodward Collection, Cambridge. (Nat. size.)
In looking through the writings of the earlier authors we cannot help noticing their anxiety to match all fossil plants with living species; but by degrees it was discovered that fossils are frequently the fragmentary samples of extinct types, which can be studied only under very unfavourable conditions. In the absence of those characters on which the student of living plants relies as guides to classification, it is usually impossible to arrive at any trustworthy conclusions as to precise botanical affinity. Brongniart and other authors recognised this fact, and instituted several convenient generic terms of a purely artificial and provisional nature, which are still in general use. The dangers and risks of error which necessarily attend our attempts to determine small and imperfect fragments of extinct species of plants, will be briefly touched on in another place.
CHAPTER II.
RELATION OF PALAEOBOTANY TO BOTANY AND GEOLOGY.
“La recherche du plan de la création, voilà le but vers lequel nos efforts peuvent tendre aujourd’hui.” Gaudry, 1883.
Since the greater refinements and thoroughness of scientific methods and the enormous and ever-increasing mass of literature have inevitably led to extreme specialisation, it is more than ever important to look beyond the immediate limits of one’s own subject, and to note its points of contact with other lines of research. A palaeobotanist is primarily concerned with the determination and description of fossil plants, but he must at the same time constantly keep in view the bearing of his work on wider questions of botanical or geological importance. From the nature of the case, we have in due measure to adapt the methods of work to the particular conditions before us. It is impossible to follow in the case of all fossil species precisely the same treatment as with the more complete and perfect recent plants; but it is of the utmost importance for a student of palaeobotany, by adhering to the methods of recent botany, to preserve as far as he is able the continuity of the past and present floras. Palaeontological work has often been undertaken by men who are pure geologists, and whose knowledge of zoology or botany is of the most superficial character, with the result that biologists have not been able to avail themselves, to any considerable extent, of the records of extinct forms of life. They find the literature is often characterised by a special palaeontological phraseology, and by particular methods of treatment, which are unknown to the student of living plants and animals. From this and other causes a purely artificial division has been made between the science of the organic world of to-day and that of the past.