VISIBLE RECORDS OF HEREDITY 



Lack of Photographs of New Hybrid Forms an Irreparable Loss to the World 



David Faikciiild 



Tlll-^ experience of the past seven 

 years in the conduct of the 

 Journal of Heredity has shown 

 most conclusi\ely a pathetic short- 

 sightedness of many research workers in 

 the gathering of those most useful of all 

 things, the photographic records of 

 their work. 



It is not uncommon to find that a 

 breeder has worked for years; has 

 produced a host of most interesting 

 forms, and at the last moment, just 

 as he sees them going out of flower or 

 fruit, has sent a boy with a kodak to 

 photograph them. All the visible 

 record of his work the boy must try 

 to squeeze into the space of a three and 

 a quarter by four and a quarter film. 

 The result is that when the research 

 man comes to show his results to the 

 interested public he fails completely. 

 He cannot describe the forms which 

 have disappeared or which, like a comet 

 have gone for a whole year. He can 

 only say to his friends, "If you could 

 only have seen them;" or, "If you 

 could only come in May and sec them 

 again." 



One of tlie most prominent nuni in 

 the field of animal genetics said to me 

 the other day he had often wished he 

 had taken photographs as he went 

 along, so that now he could portray 

 the changes which have taken place 

 in his guinea pigs. And all of us could 

 add similar instances. 



If we research men would put a small 

 fraction of the time which we devote 

 to getting our results, into a study of 

 how to i)hotograph them adec|uately 

 so that they will sliow just what these 

 results are, our work would be im- 

 mensely benefited by the effort. 



The world will look at pictures. It 

 can understand those that are properly 

 made and that are large enough to see 

 easily. It will not take the trouble 

 to imagine in a tiny kodak view the 



details which ilie research man can 

 see plainly because he knows before lie 

 looks at it what to look for. 



I believe it is a mistake to depend 

 upon a professional photographer to 

 get what one wants shown. He cannot 

 have your point of view and is trying 

 for something else — a pleasing effect. 

 He almost involuntarily does this. It 

 has taken us years of painstaking work 

 to educate the official photographers 

 in the Department of Agriculture to 

 get what we want portrayed, and an 

 inexperienced man cannot get what 

 you want. Put your own head under 

 the black focusing cloth and arrange 

 your own photograph. 



But in getting scientific accuracy 

 don't forget that the professional 

 photograi:)her was right too — you must 

 make yoi:r jiicture attractive to give 

 it the greatest value. 



The Ijackground of a jjicture is of 

 great importance in making it attrac- 

 tive. An ugly fence or the bare side 

 of a house or barn will spoil the looks 

 of any photograph. 



Remember that it is the unusual 

 p(jint of view that attracts. Remember 

 that the near view is usually more 

 striking than that taken from a dis- 

 tance. Remember that it is not 

 necessary to show all of an object; the 

 eye will complete it just as it does a 

 fragment of a landscape. 



Perhaps the very most tlifficult 

 thing to show in the photograph of a 

 fruit or flower or small plant is its size. 

 It is quite common to put a measuring 

 stick in the photograph, or a surveyor's 

 l)ole, or to try to gi\e scale b>' a cane 

 stuck in the ground, or a man's hat 

 or a jack knife laid on the table. 

 Curiously enough, these things not 

 only ruin the beauty of the picture 

 but fail to give an idea of the size. It 

 takes a conscious effort on the part of 

 the observer to translate it. He says 



174 



