Abstract
SOME students of natural history are content, when the explanations of phenomena which they have advanced and the arguments by which they have supported those explanations are appropriated by other observers, to remain silent, trusting to the justice of future generations for the vindication of their claims. So far as my own experience goes, an active observer who should trouble himself to obtain honest treatment from all his contemporaries in regard to the significance of his published Writings, might abundantly employ the latter half of his life in struggling with new writers for that just recognition of his efforts in earlier years in advancing the knowledge of this or that subject, which is the one reward desired above all others by most men who have not attained to the heights of philosophic contempt for the regard and sympathy of fellow-labourers. I do not intend to largely employ my leisure in this pursuit, but there is one subject on which I am anxious once for all to establish the significance of my observations and reasonings published twelve years ago in relation to similar views advanced and accepted at this moment.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LANKESTER, E. The Pleomorphism of the Schizophyta. Nature 33, 413–415 (1886). https://doi.org/10.1038/033413b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/033413b0
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Microbial neopleomorphism
Biology & Philosophy (2013)