46 PENH ALLOW ON 



of those who were iu any way connected with botanical work in Canada, probably did not 

 exceed twenty-four' — an average of about ten for each century. Nor did all these con- 

 tribute direct botanical work or writings. This is explained, however, when we recall 

 the state of botanical science in Europe for the same period, and realise that the impulse 

 to exploration came from the hope of extending domain. The idea of exploration for 

 scientific purposes, even as subordinate to other objects, did not develop until about the 

 middle of the eighteenth century — Kalm being the first to visit these shores in behalf of 

 science. 



Of the twenty-four whom we may thus claim as our early botanists, 12.5 per cent, were 

 missionaries ; 33.3 per cent, were explorers with whom the natural history of the country 

 was only incidental — many explorers taking no notice of it at all ; — while, if we may be 

 permitted to include certain state officials who were only indirectly interested, the remain- 

 ing 54.2 per cent, were naturalists. 



Again, of all these, *79.1 per cent, treated of the botany of Canada directly. The re- 

 maining 20.9 per cent, dealt with our flora only incidentally, e. g., Tournefort and 

 L'Heretier, who described certain collections ; Bartram, iu his account of the North 

 American species of the vine ; and to the same category belong Linnaeus, Forster and 

 Richard. Of those who dealt with the Canadian flora directly, were Sarrasin, Newen- 

 ham, (?) Menzies, Lafitau, Kalm, Hennepin, Gaultier, Diéreville, Cornut, Charlevoix, 

 Thevot, Michaux, Cham plain, Boucher, Hearne, Weld, Denis and JefFerys. Another note- 

 worthy fact is, that none of these men were native born. Sarrasin married and died in 

 Canada. Boucher and Champlain also died here. Others, as Cornut, Richard, Tournefort 

 and L'Héritier, did not even visit the country, but accomplished their work through the 

 medium of collections made by others. And if we inquire into their nationality, we find 

 there were — French, fourteen ; English, five ; Americans, two ; Swedes, two ; Germans, one. 

 While, therefore, the early Canadian botany was wholly dependent for its development 

 upon aliens, the French had by far the greater number of workers in the field. This was 

 the necessary result of (1) the fact that the centres of higher education were all in Europe, 

 and such institutions as possessed any facilities for botanical instruction on this continent 

 were not in a position to properly c[ualify men iu this direction, until a comparatively late 

 period ; (2) the occupation of Canada as French territory. We may note, however, that 

 the beginning of botanical work here, was practically simultaneous with the origin of 

 the science in Europe, and in all its later phases of development, Canadian botany has 

 followed and been dependent upon the advances made in the Old World and also in the 

 United States. It is only within a comparatively short time that we have been able to 

 produce independent work. 



Finally, it must be kept in mind that the titles given to the writings of many of the 

 early travellers, are often sadly misleading as to the actual contents of the volume ; and 

 while an elaborate title conveys the impression that a rich store of information may be 

 found within, nothing but disappointment is often met with. When the natural history 

 is treated of, it is often with sole reference to animals and fish, while iu other cases plants 

 are dealt with but briefly. This finds its illustration, among other works, in Jefferys' 



' It is quite probable that thi.s does not represent the full number of the early Canadian botanists. The lajise 

 of so long a period without any definite record of their names and work, has .sufficed to relegate to obscurity all 

 except those whose published works have survived to the present time. 



