132 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



Antarctic Expedition are only some among the many which might be 

 selected for spacial nuntion. His communications to Darwin, 

 Haxley, Bentham, Asa Grray, Harvey, Henslow and others, especially 

 those relating to the growth and development of the theory of 

 evolution, are particularly note worth}' ; that to Darwin with reference 

 to his (Hooker's) attack on Wilberforce at the memorable meeting of 

 the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is very lively reading. 

 Throughout his career he was in constant contact with leading 

 botanists at home and abroad, in connection with whom items of 

 interest are incidentally mentioned. In almost all such cases 

 Mr. Huxley has added a footnote containing a brief biography ; this 

 could hardly be better done. The Biographical Index of British 

 Botanists has, quite rightly, been laid under contribution : in some 

 instances — e. g. Edward Madden (i. 468) the notice is little more 

 than an expansion of that in the Index. The value of the information 

 given is perhaps best appreciated when it is withheld, as in the case of 

 one "Grerard," whose views on the validity of species are combated 

 (i. 440) ; the context suggests that Grodron is intended, but Hooker 

 could hardly have spoken of him as ** evidently no botanist." More- 

 over, the work criticized — L' Espece — can hardly have been Godron's 

 book so-called, as Mr. Huxley says, inasmuch as Hooker's letter in 

 which it is referred to is dated 184-5 and Godron's volume was not 

 published until 1859. In some cases — e. g. that of William Ander- 

 son, of whom a full account was given in Journ. Bot. 1916, 345- 

 51 — the biographies in this Journal might have been consulted with 

 advantage. 



The early wish of Sir William Hooker that his son should succeed 

 him was fulfilled not at Glasgow but at Kew ; Joseph was appointed 

 assistant to the Director in 1856, after various disappointments which 

 threatened his botanical career, and on his father's death in 1865 

 became Director. Here he set to work to reorganize the establish- 

 ment, which he at once raised to a higher state of scientific and 

 horticultural efficiency, carrying out, often in the face of much 

 official discouragement, developments which he had long seen to be 

 necessary. Five years later Hooker's work was interrupted by a long 

 and bitter personal conflict with A. S. Ayrton, First Commissioner 

 of Works, under whose administration Kew then came. A chapter 

 is occupied with a recital of the main facts of the controversy, 

 which occupied "the attention of both Houses of Parliament and was 

 embittered by the publication of an official report written by Owen, 

 " who," says Mr. Huxley, ** was notoriously hostile to Kew and 

 to its Director for his evidence before the Science Commissioners, 

 and Owen had emplo3^ed all his great dexterity to belittle Kew and 

 its applications of systematic botany, to urge the transfer of its 

 collections to the British Museum, where they would come under his 

 own government, and to insinuate a bitter personal attack on both 

 the Hookers." This sentence, which is not written with Mr. Huxley's 

 usual care and lucidity, hardly explains Owen's grounds for '' hostility" : 

 the Science Commission alluded to is apparently that of 1871, at 

 which the "transfer" of the Museum collections to Kew had been 



