BOTANISTS AND THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES 361 



serves in the Chicago region and in encouraging a measure of protection of 

 the celebrated dune region. Deam, an amateur botanist to whom we owe 

 what Fernald called the best of our state floras, was instrumental in establish- 

 ing the excellent system of state forests and parks in Indiana. 



But one may search the early membership of the Botanical Society and 

 scan its proceedings without much evidence of great concern over natural 

 resources. This reflects no discredit upon the distinguished scholars who com- 

 posed it. They had enough on their minds as it was, being but a handful 

 operating on a vast continent, while across the Atlantic a profound revolution 

 was taking place in their discipline. 



In his presidential address in 1900 Underwood cites the changes of twenty- 

 five years, beginning with the time when there was, practically speaking, only 

 one botanist in the United States (Underwood, 1900). Previous to 1895 

 it was almost necessary for botanists to receive their training in Europe. 

 Within a decade this situation was changed, in large measure through the 

 leadership of Harper, Coulter, and Bessey and the lively atmosphere gen- 

 erated by a group of individualists at Harvard. 



Economic opportunities for botanists were increasing rapidly at the same 

 time, because of the expansion of state universities and agricultural colleges 

 and of the research and regulatory work of the Department of Agriculture. 

 Botany ceased to be merely an ornament in the female curriculum and a per- 

 functory part of the training of such physicians and druggists as attended 

 college. 



Not only were botanists being produced to supply the need for teachers 

 and government workers, but their training was of greater breadth and higher 

 quality than it had been. In the research laboratories respectable, often 

 distinguished, additions were being made to the new morphology and physi- 

 ology imported from the Old World. There was notable activity in genetics, 

 cytology, and pathology. And while the almost exclusive interest in taxonomy 

 declined, Americans carried on their full share of exploration and monographic 

 work while making substantial contributions toward basic taxonomic theory 

 (Bessey, 1897). 



These advances and the brilliant developments which came in the succeed- 

 ing half century must all be reckoned as essential to conservation, since they 

 have given us a clearer understanding of an essential natural resource, plant 

 life. At least one study made during the first decade of the 20th century had 

 vital implications for conservation. This was the work of the British plant 

 physiologist Blackman (1905) on limiting factors. His basic idea was not 

 new, having been expressed long before in Liebig's Law of the Minimum 

 and, still earlier, applied empirically to mankind by Franklin and Malthus. 



No inference could be clearer from our present biological knowledge than 

 the fact that organisms must come to terms with the limitations of a finite 

 environment. Yet we find little evidence in the prevailing mores, so amazingly 



