310 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



"the Botanical Establishments now maintained at the expense of 

 the State, the one at the British Museum, the other in the Royal 

 Gardens at Kew," concerning ^Yhich it had received much evidence. 

 It says "the evidence which has been laid before us leaves us no 

 alternative but to recommend that these two Botanical collections 

 . . . should not be merged into one, but that both be kept in a state 

 of efficiency, and that the special scientific direction which each 

 has spontaneously taken should be retained." The special direction 

 here referred to is in the case of Kew that of systematic botany, in 

 the case of the British Museum that of botanical palaeontology. 

 The Commission were also impressed with the desirability of having 

 in the British Museum " a geographically arranged collection as 

 the complement of the purely systematically arranged collection at 

 Kew." The Commission accordingly recommended "That the 

 Collections at the British Museum be maintained and arranged 

 with special reference to the geographical distribution of plants 

 and to palaeontology, and that the collections at Kew be maintained 

 and arranged with special reference to systematic botany." This 

 recommendation has not been carried out. The Department of 

 Botany of the British Museum has not been developed in the 

 direction of botanical palaBontology. The collections of fossil 

 plants are not under the cliarge of the Keeper of Botany, but are 

 under the charge of the Keeper of Geology. The general herbarium 

 is not arranged geographically, but systematically ; indeed it is 

 actually less geographically arranged than is the herbarium at 

 Kew, since in the latter, species within each genus are arranged 

 geographically, whereas in the former a systematic arrangement is 

 maintained to tlie end. Except for this geographical feature of 

 the Kew Herbarium, and for the fact that each herbarium contains 

 " type specimens" which the other does not, the two herbaria may 

 be considered as duplicates one of the other. The objects which 

 the Devonshire Commission had in view when it recommended the 

 maintenance of both establishments have not been attained. 



The question of the union of the botanical collections of the 

 British Museum and of Kew has thus been raised again and again. 

 Each time the question has been decided in the negative, though 

 not always for the same reason ; and the fact that the question has 

 from time to time been raised anew may be taken as indicating 

 either that the circumstances affecting the question have from time 

 to time changed (which is the case), or that the previous decision 

 did not appear to be based on convincing grounds. It is to be 

 noted also that union at Kew has been most usually suggested, not 

 union at the British Museum 



Union of the two Herbaria desirable. 



The views of the Trustees of the British Museum on the subject 

 of the union of the two herbaria are contained in their letter to the 

 Treasury of the 12th July, 1899 ; to this, we have ascertained, they 

 have nothing to add. We observe, however, that they make no 

 reference either to the intrinsic increase of efficiency which must 

 arise from the amalgamation of two institutions and staffs now 



