Dicotyledons, which includes only the families of Nymphaeaceae
and Gramineae. It is based upon the fact that the histological
differentiation of the epidermis of their root is that generally
characteristic of Monocotyledons, whilst they have two cotyledons--the
old view of the epiblast as a second cotyledon in Gramineae being
adopted. But the presence of a second cotyledon in grasses is
extremely doubtful, and though there may be ground for reconsidering
the position of Nymphaeaceae, their association with the grasses as
a distinct class is not warranted by a comparative examination of the
members of the two orders. Ovular characters determine the grouping in
the Dicotyledons, van Tieghem supporting the view that the integument,
the outer if there be two, is the lamina of a leaf of which the
funicle is the petiole, whilst the nucellus is an outgrowth of
this leaf, and the inner integument, if present, an indusium. The
Insemineae include forms in which the nucellus is not developed, and
therefore there can be no seed. The plants included are, however,
mainly well-established parasites, and the absence of nucellus is only
one of those characters of reduction to which parasites are liable.
Even if we admit van Tieghem's interpretation of the integuments to
be correct, the diagnostic mark of his unitegminous and bitegminous
groups is simply that of the absence or presence of an indusium, not a
character of great value elsewhere, and, as we know, the number of the
ovular coats is inconstant within the same family. At the same time
the groups based upon the integuments are of much the same extent as
the Polypetalae and Gamopetalae of other systems. We do not yet
know the significance of this correlation, which, however, is not an
invariable one, between number of integuments and union of petals.
Within the last few years Prof. John Coulter and Dr. C.J. Chamberlain
of Chicago University have given a valuable general account of the
morphology of Angiosperms as far as concerns the flower, and the
series of events which ends in the formation of the seed (_Morphology
of Angiosperms_, Chicago, 1903).
AUTHORITIES.--The reader will find in the following works details
of the subject and references to the literature: Bentham and Hooker,
_Genera Plantarum_ (London, 1862-1883); Eichler, _Bluthendiagramme_
(Leipzig, 1875-1878); Engler and Prantl, _Die naturlichen
Pflanzenfamilien_ (Leipzig, 1887-1899); Engler, _Syllabus der
Pflanzenfamilien_, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1903); Knuth, _Handbuch der
Blutenbiologie_ (Leipzig, 1898, 1899); Sachs, _History of Botany_,
English ed. (Oxford, 1890); Solereder, _Systematische Anatomie
der Dicotyledonen_ (Stuttgart, 1899); van Tieghem, _Elements de
botanique_; Coulter and Chamberlain, _Morphology of Angiosperms_ (New
York, 1903).
(I.B.B.; A.B.R.)
ANGKOR, an assemblage of ruins in Cambodia, the relic of the ancient
Khmer civilization. They are situated in forests to the north of the
Great Lake (Tonle-Sap), the most conspicuous of the remains being the
town of Angkor-Thom and the temple of Angkor-Vat, both of which lie on
the right bank of the river Siem-Reap, a tributary of Tonle-Sap.
Other remains of the same form and character lie scattered about the
vicinity on both banks of the river, which is crossed by an ancient
stone bridge.
Angkor-Thom lies about a quarter of a mile from the river. According
to Aymonier it was begun about A.D. 860, in the reign of the Khmer
sovereign Jayavarman III., and finished towards A.D. 900. It consists
of a rectangular enclosure, nearly 2 m. in each direction, surrounded
by a wall from 20 to 30 ft. in height. Within the enclosure, which
is entered by five monumental gates, are the remains of palaces and
temples, overgrown by the forest. The chief of these are:--
(1) The vestiges of the royal palace, which stood within an enclosure
containing also the pyramidal religious structure known as the
Phimeanakas. To the east of this enclosure there extends a terrace
decorated with magnificent reliefs.
(2) The temple of Bayon, a square enclosure formed by galleries with
colonnades, within which is another and more elaborate system of
galleries, rectangular in arrangement and enclosing a cruciform
structure, at the centre of which rises a huge tower with a circular
base. Fifty towers, decorated with quadruple faces of Brahma, are
built at intervals upon the galleries, the whole temple ranking as
perhaps the most remarkable of the Khmer remains.
Angkor-Vat, the best preserved example of Khmer architecture, lies
less than a mile to the south of the royal city, within a rectangular
park surrounded by a moat, the outer perimeter of which measures 6060
yds. On the west side of the park a paved causeway, leading over the
moat and under a magnificent portico, extends for a distance of a
quarter of a mile to the chief entrance of the main building. The
temple was originally devoted to the worship of Brahma, but afterwards
to that of Buddha; its construction is assigned by Aymonier to the
first half of the 12th century A.D. It consists of three stages,
connected by numerous exterior staircases and decreasing in dimensions
as they rise, culminating in the sanctuary, a great central tower
pyramidal in form. Towers also surmount the angles of the terraces
of the two upper stages. Three galleries with vaulting supported on
columns lead from the three western portals to the second stage.
They are connected by a transverse gallery, thus forming four square
basins. Khmer decoration, profuse but harmonious, consists chiefly in
the representation of gods, men and animals, which are displayed on
every flat surface. Combats and legendary episodes are often depicted;
floral decoration is reserved chiefly for borders, mouldings and
capitals. Sandstone of various colours was the chief material employed
by the Khmers; limonite was also used. The stone was cut into huge
blocks which are fitted together with great accuracy without the use
of cement.
See E. Aymonier, _Le Cambodge_ (3 vols., 1900-1904); Doudart de
Lagrée, _Voyage d'exploration en Indo-Chine_ (1872-1873); A.H. Mouhot,
_Travels in Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos_ (2 vols., 1864); Fournereau
and Porcher, _Les Ruines d'Angkor_ (1890); L. Delaporte, _Voyage
au Cambodge: l'architecture Khmer_ (1880); J. Moura, _Le Royaume de
Cambodge_ (2 vols., 1883).
ANGLE (from the Lat. _angulus_, a corner, a diminutive, of which the
primitive form, _angus_, does not occur in Latin; cognate are the Lat.
_angere_, to compress into a bend or to strangle, and the Gr. [Greek:
ankos], a bend; both connected with the Aryan root _ank_-, to bend:
see ANGLING), in geometry, the inclination of one line or plane to
another. Euclid (_Elements_, book I) defines a plane angle as the
inclination to each other, in a plane, of two lines which meet
each other, and do not lie straight with respect to each other (see
GEOMETRY, EUCLIDEAN). According to Proclus an angle must be either
a quality or a quantity, or a relationship. The first concept was
utilized by Eudemus, who regarded an angle as a deviation from a
straight line; the second by Carpus of Antioch, who regarded it as the
interval or space between the intersecting lines; Euclid adopted the
third concept, although his definitions of right, acute, and obtuse
angles are certainly quantitative. A discussion of these concepts and
the various definitions of angles in Euclidean geometry is to be
found in W.B. Frankland, _The First Book of Euclid's Elements_ (1905).
Following Euclid, a right angle is formed by a straight line standing
upon another straight line so as to make the adjacent angles equal;
any angle less than a right angle is termed an acute angle, and any
angle greater than a right angle an obtuse angle. The difference
between an acute angle and a right angle is termed the complement of
the angle, and between an angle and two right angles the supplement
of the angle. The generalized view of angles and their measurement is
treated in the article TRIGONOMETRY. A solid angle is definable as
the space contained by three or more planes intersecting in a common
point; it is familiarly represented by a corner. The angle between two
planes is termed dihedral, between three trihedral, between any number
more than three polyhedral. A spherical angle is a particular dihedral
angle; it is the angle between two intersecting arcs on a sphere, and
is measured by the angle between the planes containing the arcs and
the centre of the sphere.
[v.02 p.0015]
The angle between a line and a curve (mixed angle) or between two
curves (curvilinear angle) is measured by the angle between the line
and the tangent at the point of intersection, or between the tangents
to both curves at their common point. Various names (now rarely, if
ever, used) have been given to particular cases:--amphicyrtic (Gr.
[Greek: amphi], on both sides, [Greek: kyrtos], convex) or cissoidal
(Gr. [Greek: kissos], ivy), biconvex; xystroidal or sistroidal (Gr.
[Greek: xystris], a tool for scraping), concavo-convex; amphicoelic
(Gr. [Greek: koilae], a hollow) or _angulus lunularis_, biconcave.
[Illustration: The Angler (_Lophius piscatorius_).]
ANGLER, also sometimes called fishing-frog, frog-fish, sea-devil
(_Lophius piscatorius_), a fish well known off the coasts of Great
Britain and Europe generally, the grotesque shape of its body and its
singular habits having attracted the attention of naturalists of all
ages. To the North Sea fishermen this fish is known as the "monk," a
name which more properly belongs to _Rhina squatina_, a fish allied to
the skates. Its head is of enormous size, broad, flat and depressed,
the remainder of the body appearing merely like an appendage. The wide
mouth extends all round the anterior circumference of the head;
and both jaws are armed with bands of long pointed teeth, which are
inclined inwards, and can be depressed so as to offer no impediment to
an object gliding towards the stomach, but to prevent its escape from
the mouth. The pectoral and ventral fins are so articulated as to
perform the functions of feet, the fish being enabled to move, or
rather to walk, on the bottom of the sea, where it generally hides
itself in the sand or amongst sea-weed. All round its head and also
along the body the skin bears fringed appendages resembling short
fronds of sea-weed, a structure which, combined with the extraordinary
faculty of assimilating the colour of the body to its surroundings,
assists this fish greatly in concealing itself in places which
it selects on account of the abundance of prey. To render the
organization of this creature perfect in relation to its wants, it is
provided with three long filaments inserted along the middle of the
head, which are, in fact, the detached and modified three first spines
of the anterior dorsal fin. The filament most important in the economy
of the angler is the first, which is the longest, terminates in a
lappet, and is movable in every direction. The angler is believed to
attract other fishes by means of its lure, and then to seize them
with its enormous jaws. It is probable enough that smaller fishes are
attracted in this way, but experiments have shown that the action
of the jaws is automatic and depends on contact of the prey with the
tentacle. Its stomach is distensible in an extraordinary degree, and
not rarely fishes have been taken out quite as large and heavy as
their destroyer. It grows to a length of more than 5 ft.; specimens
of 3 ft. are common. The spawn of the angler is very remarkable. It
consists of a thin sheet of transparent gelatinous material 2 or 3
ft. broad and 25 to 30 ft. in length. The eggs in this sheet are in a
single layer, each in its own little cavity. The spawn is free in the
sea. The larvae are free-swimming and have the pelvic fins elongated
into filaments. The British species is found all round the coasts of
Europe and western North America, but becomes scarce beyond 60° N.
lat.; it occurs also on the coasts of the Cape of Good Hope. A second
species (_Lophius budegassa_) inhabits the Mediterranean, and a third
(_L. setigerus_) the coasts of China and Japan.
ANGLESEY, ARTHUR ANNESLEY, 1st EARL OF (1614-1686), British statesman,
son of the 1st Viscount Valentia (cr. 1621) and Baron Mountnorris (cr.
1628), and of Dorothy, daughter of Sir John Philipps of Picton Castle,
Pembrokeshire, was born at Dublin on the 10th of July 1614, was
educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, and was admitted to Lincoln's
Inn in 1634. Having made the grand tour he returned to Ireland; and
being employed by the parliament in a mission to the duke of Ormonde,
now reduced to the last extremities, he succeeded in concluding a
treaty with him on the 19th of June 1647, thus securing the country
from complete subjection to the rebels. In April 1647 he was
returned for Radnorshire to the House of Commons. He supported the
parliamentary as against the republican or army party, and appears
to have been one of the members excluded in 1648. He sat in Richard
Cromwell's parliament for Dublin city, and endeavoured to take his
seat in the restored Rump Parliament of 1659. He was made president of
the council in February 1660, and in the Convention Parliament sat for
Carmarthen borough. The anarchy of the last months of the commonwealth
converted him to royalism, and he showed great activity in bringing
about the Restoration. He used his influence in moderating measures of
revenge and violence, and while sitting in judgment on the regicides
was on the side of leniency. In November 1660 by his father's death
he had become Viscount Valentia and Baron Mountnorris in the Irish
peerage, and on the 20th April 1661 he was created Baron Annesley of
Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire and earl of Anglesey in the
peerage of Great Britain. He supported the king's administration in
parliament, but opposed strongly the unjust measure which, on the
abolition of the court of wards, placed the extra burden of
taxation thus rendered necessary on the excise. His services in the
administration of Ireland were especially valuable. He filled the
office of vice-treasurer from 1660 till 1667, served on the committee
for carrying out the declaration for the settlement of Ireland and on
the committee for Irish affairs, while later, in 1671 and 1672, he was
a leading member of various commissions appointed to investigate the
working of the Acts of Settlement. In February 1661 he had obtained a
captaincy of horse, and in 1667 he exchanged his vice-treasuryship of
Ireland for the treasuryship of the navy. His public career was marked
by great independence and fidelity to principle. On the 24th of July
1663 he alone signed a protest against the bill "for the encouragement
of trade," on the plea that owing to the free export of coin and
bullion allowed by the act, and to the importation of foreign
commodities being greater than the export of home goods, "it must
necessarily follow ... that our silver will also be carried away into
foreign parts and all trade fail for want of money."[1] He especially
disapproved of another clause in the same bill forbidding the
importation of Irish cattle into England, a mischievous measure
promoted by the duke of Buckingham, and he opposed again the bill
brought in with that object in January 1667. This same year his
naval accounts were subjected to an examination in consequence of his
indignant refusal to take part in the attack upon Ormonde;[2] and he
was suspended from his office in 1668, no charge, however, against him
being substantiated. He took a prominent part in the dispute in 1671
between the two Houses concerning the right of the Lords to amend
money bills, and wrote a learned pamphlet on the question entitled
_The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons_ (1702), in which
the right of the Lords was asserted. In April 1673 he was appointed
lord privy seal, and was disappointed at not obtaining the great seal
the same year on the removal of Shaftesbury. In 1679 he was included
in Sir W. Temple's new-modelled council.
[v.02 p.0016]
In the bitter religious controversies of the time Anglesey showed
great moderation and toleration. In 1674 he is mentioned as
endeavouring to prevent the justices putting into force the laws
against the Roman Catholics and Nonconformists.[3] In the panic of the
"Popish Plot" in 1678 he exhibited a saner judgment than most of his
contemporaries and a conspicuous courage. On the 6th of December he
protested with three other peers against the measure sent up from the
Commons enforcing the disarming of all convicted recusants and taking
bail from them to keep the peace; he was the only peer to dissent
from the motion declaring the existence of an Irish plot; and though
believing in the guilt and voting for the death of Lord Stafford, he
interceded, according to his own account,[4] with the king for him as
well as for Langhorne and Plunket. His independent attitude drew
upon him an attack by Dangerfield, and in the Commons by the
attorney-general, Sir W. Jones, who accused him of endeavouring to
stifle the evidence against the Romanists. In March 1679 he protested
against the second reading of the bill for disabling Danby. In 1681
Anglesey wrote _A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Country_, as a
rejoinder to the earl of Castlehaven, who had published memoirs on
the Irish rebellion defending the action of the Irish and the Roman
Catholics. In so doing Anglesey was held by Ormonde to have censured
his conduct and that of Charles I. in concluding the "Cessation," and
the duke brought the matter before the council. In 1682 he wrote _The
Account of Arthur, Earl of Anglesey ... of the true state of Your
Majesty's Government and Kingdom_, which was addressed to the king
in a tone of censure and remonstrance, but appears not to have been
printed till 1694.[5] In consequence he was dismissed on the 9th of
August 1682 from the office of lord privy seal. In 1683 he appeared
at the Old Bailey as a witness in defence of Lord Russell, and in June
1685 he protested alone against the revision of Stafford's attainder.
He died at his home at Blechingdon in Oxfordshire on the 26th of April
1686, closing a career marked by great ability, statesmanship and
business capacity, and by conspicuous courage and independence of
judgment. He amassed a large fortune in Ireland, in which country he
had been allotted lands by Cromwell.
The unfavourable character drawn of him by Burnet is certainly unjust
and not supported by any evidence. Pepys, a far more trustworthy
judge, speaks of him invariably in terms of respect and approval as a
"grave, serious man," and commends his appointment as treasurer of
the navy as that of "a very notable man and understanding and will do
things regular and understand them himself."[6] He was a learned and
cultivated man and collected a celebrated library, which was dispersed
at his death. Besides the pamphlets already mentioned, he wrote:--_A
True Account of the Whole Proceedings betwixt ... the Duke of Ormond
and ... the Earl of Anglesey_ (1682); _A Letter of Remarks upon
Jovian_ (1683); other works ascribed to him being _The King's Right of
Indulgence in Matters Spiritual ... asserted_ (1688); _Truth Unveiled,
to which is added a short Treatise on ... Transubstantiation_ (1676);
_The Obligation resulting from the Oath of Supremacy_ (1688);
and _England's Confusion_ (1659). _Memoirs_ of Lord Anglesey were
published by Sir P. Pett in 1693, but contain little biographical
information and were repudiated as a mere imposture by Sir John
Thompson (Lord Haversham), his son-in-law, in his preface to Lord
Anglesey's _State of the Government_ in 1694. The author however
of the preface to _The Rights of the Lords asserted_ (1702), while
blaming their publication as "scattered and unfinished papers," admits
their genuineness.
Lord Anglesey married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir James
Altham of Oxey, Hertfordshire, by whom, besides other children, he had
James, who succeeded him, Altham, created Baron Altham, and Richard,
afterwards 3rd Baron Altham. His descendant Richard, the 6th earl
(d. 1761), left a son Arthur, whose legitimacy was doubted, and the
peerage became extinct. He was summoned to the Irish House of Peers as
Viscount Valentia, but was denied his writ to the parliament of Great
Britain by a majority of one vote. He was created in 1793 earl of
Mountnorris in the peerage of Ireland. All the male descendants of the
1st earl of Anglesey became extinct in the person of George, 2nd earl
of Mountnorris, in 1844, when the titles of Viscount Valentia and
Baron Mountnorris passed to his cousin Arthur Annesley (1785-1863),
who thus became 10th Viscount Valentia, being descended from the
1st Viscount Valentia the father of the 1st earl of Anglesey in the
Annesley family. The 1st viscount was also the ancestor of the Earls
Annesley in the Irish peerage.
[Footnote 1: _Protests of the Lords_, by J.E. Thorold Rogers (1875),
i. 27: Carti's _Life of Ormonde_ (1851), iv. 234; _Parl. Hist._ iv.
284.]
[Footnote 2: Carti's _Ormonde_, iv. 330, 340.]
[Footnote 3: _Cal. of State Pap. Dom._ (1673-1675), p. 152.]
[Footnote 4: _Memoirs_, 8, 9.]
[Footnote 5: By Sir J. Thompson, his son-in-law. Reprinted in _Somers
Tracts_ (Scott, 1812), viii. 344, and in _Parl. Hist._ iv. app. xvi.]
[Footnote 6: _Diary_ (ed. Wheatley, 1904), iv. 298, vii. 14.]
AUTHORITIES.--_Dict. of Nat. Biography_, with authorities there
collected; lives in Wood's _Athenae Oxonienses_ (Bliss), iv. 181,
_Biographia Britannica_, and H. Walpole's _Royal and Noble Authors_
(1806), iii. 288 (the latter a very inadequate review of Anglesey's
character and career); also _Bibliotheca Anglesiana_ ... per Thomam
Philippum (1686); _The Happy Future State of England_, by Sir Peter
Pett (1688); _Great News from Poland_ (1683), where his religious
tolerance is ridiculed; _Somers Tracts_ (Scott, 1812), viii. 344;
_Notes of the Privy Council_ (Roxburghe Club, 1896); _Cal. of State
Papers, Dom._; _State Trials_, viii. and ix. 619.
(P.C.Y.)