HIS WRITINGS 149 



generations, will be necessary before the naturally related groups, 

 and their relations to one another, are recognised in the plexus 

 of forms of the Polypodiaceae." 



Such observations as these must not be understood in any 

 sense of disparagement of the work of this great man. They are 

 merely intended to indicate his historical position. The Origin 

 of Species was, it is true, published some few years before the 

 Synopsis Filicum. But we must remember that Sir William 

 Hooker was already an old man. Few men over 70 years of 

 age alter their opinions, and the labourer who had grown old 

 under the belief in the Constancy of Species could not in a few 

 brief years be expected to change the methods of thought of a 

 long and active life. We must take Sir William Hooker as 

 perhaps the greatest and the last of the systematists who worked 

 under the belief in the Constancy of Species. Because we have 

 adopted a newer point of view, and take into consideration facts 

 and arguments which were never his, and come to different 

 conclusions now, is no reason for valuing one whit the less the 

 achievements of this great botanist. 



His published work was just as much fundamental as was his 

 official work. We have seen how he provided in Kew the means 

 of indefinite development later, by constructing the coordinating 

 machine with its collections and its libraries. In somewhat 

 similar sense his publications were also fundamental. He did 

 not himself construct. There is, I believe, no great modification 

 of system or of view which is to be associated with his name. 

 But in the wealth of trustworthy detail, recorded both pictorially 

 and in verbal diagnoses, he has supplied the foundation for 

 future workers to build upon, laid surely and firmly by accurate 

 observation, and therefore durable for all time. 



One remark I may make as to the effect of his work on the 

 trend of botanical activity in this country. We have noted that 

 anatomy was not Sir William Hooker's strong point. He and 

 many of his contemporaries did not pursue microscopic detail, 

 and indeed seem to have avoided it. He was, however, a domi- 

 nating botanical influence of the middle Victorian period. May 

 we not see in these facts, combined with the extraordinary 

 success of the systematic work carried on by himself, or under 



