Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional committee: Botany

Recommended for publication in Philosophical Transactions. The photographs add considerably to the value of the paper but after reproduction, some parts of them may no longer be visible. This point should be considered by someone with more technical knowledge than him.

[Published in Philosophical Transactions B, 1950].

Date received not given.

Reference number
RR/72/269
Earliest possible date
1949
Physical description
Standardised form (type E)
Page extent
1 page
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Hugh Hamshaw Thomas

View page for Hugh Hamshaw Thomas

Use this record

Citation

Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, Referee's report by Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, on a paper 'The comparative investigation of apices of vascular plants by experimental methods' by C W Wardlaw, 1949, RR/72/269, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_72_269/referees-report-by-hugh-hamshaw-thomas-on-a-paper-the-comparative-investigation-of-apices-of-vascular-plants-by-experimental-methods-by-c-w-wardlaw, accessed on 20 May 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_72_269/referees-report-by-hugh-hamshaw-thomas-on-a-paper-the-comparative-investigation-of-apices-of-vascular-plants-by-experimental-methods-by-c-w-wardlaw" title="Referee's report by Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, on a paper 'The comparative investigation of apices of vascular plants by experimental methods' by C W Wardlaw" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Fellows

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1949

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection