pecially in its relation to the study of vegetable
homology it has no superiority over teratology. Those who hold the
contrary opinion do so, apparently, because they overlook the fact that
there is no distinction, save of degree, to be drawn between the laws
regulating normal organisation, and those by which so-called abnormal
formations are regulated.

It is sometimes said, and not wholly without truth, that teratology, as
it stands at present, is little more than a record of facts, but in
proportion as the laws that regulate normal growth are better
understood, so will the knowledge of those that govern the so-called
monstrous formations increase. Sufficient has been already said to
prove that there is no intrinsic difference between the laws of growth
in the two cases. As our knowledge increases we shall be enabled to
ascertain approximately of what extent of variation a given form is
capable, under given conditions, and to refer all formations now
considered anomalous to a few well-defined forms. Already teratology has
done much towards showing the erroneous nature of many morphological
statements that still pass current in our text-books, though their
fallacy has been demonstrated again and again. Thus organs are said to
be fused which were never separate, disjunctions and separations are
assigned to parts that were never joined, adhesions and cohesions are
spoken of in cases where, from the nature of things, neither adhesion
nor cohesion could have existed. Some organs are said to be atrophied
which were never larger and more fully developed than they now are, and
so on. So long as these expressions are used in a merely conventional
sense and for purposes of artificial classification or convenience, well
and good, but let us not delude ourselves that we are thus contributing
to the philosophical study either of the conformation of plants or of
the affinities existing between them. What hope is there that we shall
ever gain clear conceptions as to the former, as long as we tie
ourselves down to formulas which are the expressions of facts as they
appear to be, rather than as they really are? What chance is there of
our attaining to comprehensive and accurate views of the genealogy and
affinities of plants as long as we are restricted by false notions as to
the conformation and mutual relation of their parts?[8]

That teratology may serve the purposes of systematic botany to a greater
extent than might at first be