ment."

So far, so good; but what does he mean by the complete development of the
young _woody_ axis? When does the axis become 'wooden,' and how far up the
tree does he call it an axis? If the stem divides into three branches,
which is the axis? And is the pith in the trunk no thicker than in each
branch?

9. He proceeds to tell us, "The marrow is formed by a reunion of
cells."--Yes, and so is Newgate, and so was the Bastille. But what does it
matter whether the marrow is made of a reunion of cells, or cellars, or
walls, or floors, or ceilings? I want to know what's the use of it? why
doesn't it grow bigger with the rest of the tree? when _does_ the tree
'consolidate itself'? when is it finally consolidated? and how can there be
always marrow in it when the weary frame of its age remains a mere scarred
tower of war with the elements, full of dust and bats?

[Illustration: FIG. 24.]

'He will tell you if only you go on patiently,' thinks the reader. He will
not! Once your modern botanist gets into cells, he stays in them. Hear how
he goes on!--"This cell is a sort of sack; this sack is completely closed;
sometimes it is empty, sometimes it"--is full?--no, that would be
unscientific simplicity: sometimes it "conceals a matter in its interior."
"The marrow of young trees, such as it is represented in Figure 24
(Figuier, Figs. 38, 39, p. 42), is nothing else"--(indeed!)--"than an
aggregation of cells, which, first of spherical form, have become
polyhedric by their increase and mutual compression."

10. Now these figures, 38 and 39, which profess to represent this change,
show us sixteen oval cells, such as at A, (Fig. 24) enlarged into thirteen
larger, and flattish, hexagons!--B, placed at a totally different angle.

And before I can give you the figure revised with any available accuracy, I
must know why or how the cells are enlarged, and in what direction.

Do their walls lengthen laterally when they are empty, or does the
'matiere' inside stuff them more out, (itself increased from what sources?)
when they are full? In either case, during this change from circle to
hexagon, is the marrow getting thicker without getting longer? If so, the
change in the angle of the cells is intentional, and probably is so; but
the number of cells should have been the same: and further, the term
'hexagonal' can only be applied to the _section_ of a tubular cell, as in
honeycomb, so that the floor and ceiling of our pith cell are lef