Coulter • Development of Botany in the United States 



21 



thetic, and that is quite a notable ad- 

 vance from the distant time when we 

 thought of them only as objects sub- 

 servient to laws of nomenclature. 



A third feature that is becoming in- 

 creasingly prominent is a recognition 

 of the fact that structures are not 

 static; that is, inevitable to their last de- 

 tail. This is so fundamental in connec- 

 tion with the future development of 

 botany that I wish to emphasize it by 

 a few illustrations. 



The old method of morphology in 

 recording the facts observed in connec- 

 tion with the development of the em- 

 br}'0 of seed plants, was to record not 

 only every cell division, but also the 

 plane of every cell division. The con- 

 ception back of such records was that 

 the program of ontogeny was fixed to 

 the minutest detail. It is probably true 

 that such a structure is about as uni- 

 form in its development as any struc- 

 ture can be; but it has now become 

 evident that many of the details re- 

 corded were not significant. Instead of 

 recording them as of equal value, we 

 are now trying to distinguish those that 

 are relatively fixed from those that are 

 variables. 



Perhaps the greatest mass of details 

 has been accumulated by the cytolo- 

 gists, in connection with their examina- 

 tion of the machinery of nuclear divi- 

 sion and nuclear fusion. In no other 

 field has the conception of rigidity of 

 the structures involved become more 

 fixed, even to the minutest variation 

 in form and position. The time has 

 come when even the recorded facts of 

 cytolog}' are being estimated on the 

 basis of relative values; that is, the 

 inevitable things are being differenti- 

 ated from the variable. 



In considering these illustrations of 

 the tendency to recognize that facts are 



not all pigeonholed and of equal value, 

 it is becoming more and more obvious 

 that our botanical problems are in gen- 

 eral the application of physics and 

 chemistr}' to plants; that laws, when we 

 really discover them, are by definition 

 static, but that their operation results 

 in anything but static structures. In 

 other words, structure must respond to 

 law, but the particular law that is 

 gripping the situation may be one of 

 many. 



Until recently the scientific and 

 practical phases of botany were com- 

 pletely divorced. As a consequence, the 

 science was not practical, and the prac- 

 tice was not scientific. At last it came 

 to be recognized that practice by itself 

 is sterile, and that it needs a continu- 

 ous discovery of new knowledge to ap- 

 ply. This new botanical perspective, 

 therefore, might be described as prac- 

 tice based on science, and science that 

 illuminates and extends practice. 



It should be recognized also that 

 practice makes its contribution to prog- 

 ress, for under the pressure of necessity 

 it is practice that suggests the problems. 

 In this way the cooperation of botan- 

 ical science and practice become estab- 

 lished. 



In conclusion, I may give what may 

 be called the modem creed of botany. 

 I shall put it under three articles, in 

 the order of what I conceive to be their 

 relative importance. The service of 

 botany today is (1) to understand na- 

 ture, that the boundaries of human 

 knowledge may be extended; this may 

 be called pure science; (2) to apply 

 this knowledge to the service of man, 

 that his life may be fuller of opportu- 

 nity; this may be called applied science; 

 and (3) to use the method of science 

 in training man, that he may solve his 

 problems and not be their victim. 



