On some supposed Vegetable Fossils

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
T he baneful influence of the imagination in science is seldom more clearly seen than in the way in which fossil botany has been too often pursued. The determination of the name of a recognizable fragment can of course be made by any one who can intelligently compare a specimen with a drawing or a description; but the interpretation of the affinities of a fossil or the restoration of a plant from the few fragments known, can be accomplished only by one who has some acquaintance with living organisms, and with the essential and non-essential characters which combine or separate them. When this knowledge is wanting, a lively imagination supplies its place to the complete satisfaction of the investigator, but to the great injury of science. From its very nature, moreover, an imaginative interpretation is more tenaciously adhered to by its author than if it were the legitimate deduction from known facts; and it is more satisfactory, because it does not present the difficulties that are always encountered in real life . It is quite in keeping with this that a considerable contributor to the subject of fossil-botany has declared that a knowledge of recent plants is a serious hindrance to the investigation of fossil vegetables—and that another has recently expounded in a science-lecture his important determination of the affinities of Lepidodendron and Calamites to Lycopodium and Equisetum , although his descriptions make it evident that he never has examined, and probably never has seen a single specimen of either a club-moss or

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: