Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology21894univers).pdf/382

understand them, but from the very nature of the case this must be so. They must all be studied in the light of recent forms, which, in the case of wholly extinct groups, is a matter of great difficulty.

On the other hand, to the historical geologist who makes use of fossils in unravelling the succession of geological events, the correct biological identification is of the greatest importance, for upon this rests his interpretation of the succession of faunas and floras that have inhabited the globe. These principles are tersely stated by Dr. C. A. White in one of his essays on "The Relation of Biology to Geological Investigation."^[1] He says: "If fossils were to be treated only as mere tokens of the respective formations in which they are found, their biological classification would be a matter of little consequence, but their broad signification in historical geology, as well as in systematic biology, renders it necessary that they should be classified as nearly as possible in the same manner that living animals and plants are classified."

There are certain broad, fundamental principles upon which the science of paleobotany rests. Some of these are so simple as to be almost axiomatic, while others are less evident and have only recently been recognized. It has been disregard of these principles that, in the past, has often brought paleobotany into disrepute. Each of the departments upon which geology calls for aid has to acknowledge limitations, and so paleobotany has bounds beyond which it can not be legitimately asked to go. But it is confidently predicted that when the evidence has been sifted, and the limitations, as well as the just claims, have been properly adjusted, the evidence derived from fossil plants will be as reliable as that supplied by other branches of paleontology.

One of the most important principles has been admirably