October 7, 1915] 



NATURE 



'45 



I cotton — in the first dozen pages of the book — that the 

 systematic botany of cotton had some definite mean- 

 ing. Nor did I think that any reviewer would be so 

 ruthless as to drag my little jest (about scientific 

 names appearing to be " merely useless duplicates of 

 \_ easier names ") out of its context to pelt me. 



W. Lawrence Balls. 

 Little Shelf ord, Cambridge, September i6. 



Mr. Lawrence Balls's objections to my review of 

 his book, "The Development and Properties of Raw 

 •Cotton," which appeared in Nature of August 26, call 

 for a reply from me. 



I feel quite sure Mr. Balls need have no fear that 

 my remarks will be viewed, by even the most casual 

 reader, as the criticisms of a work that had attempted 

 to deal with the systematic botany of Gossypium. 

 But Mr. Balls's anxiety that that great sin should not 

 l)e attributed to him, exposes himself to the charge 

 of deliberate disregard for both the methods and 

 results of the systematist. It is a fact that I specially 

 •devoted a considerable part of my remarks to what I 

 regard as the weak side of Mr. Balls's book, and I 

 repeat it is a very weak side, which, though contained 

 In one chapter mainly, dominates his entire studies 

 of the cotton plant. But with equal deliberation, how- 

 ■ever, I recognised and even extolled the meritorious 

 features of the book, which are undoubtedly very 

 great. 



The implication that I read only certain portions of 

 Mr. Balls's book is quite uncalled for. As a matter 

 of fact, I read every word. It was only because I 

 appreciated and even admired the book that I felt it 

 incumbent to express my mind unhesitatingly. It was 

 in no spirit of carpiner that I gave special attention 

 to its shortcomings. The issue at stake is very. great 

 indeed; namely, the development of the cotton staple. 

 a problem of Imperial interest in the agriculture and 

 industry of our Empire. I cannot help repeating, 

 therefore, that for Mr. Balls to attempt to justify 

 Mendelian cross-breeeding of undetermined stocks 

 fand even pedigree selection of such stocks) of Gossy- 

 pium is not onlv a blemish but a serious blunder, both 

 in his book' and his work. With culture experiments 

 accuracy, in the starting point (more especially with 

 stocks that of necessity involve several species and 

 numerous varieties and races), is more essential than 

 even care in subsequent treatment. We have heard far 

 too much of the assumption that successful stocks can 

 be produced in the laboratory or the experimental plot, 

 in utter disregard of svstematic botany. 



The sneer that has been thereby cast on herbaria 

 work is uncalled for, and merits the severest con- 

 demnation. Such an attitude may enlist the sympathy 

 of the ignorant, but can secure no advancement in 

 the object in view. The question of the future supply 

 of cotton to the British looms is too serious a matter 

 to justify any half-measures. The history of cotton is 

 full of fads and fancies. Extravagant and wasteful 

 experiments have taken the place of rational develop- 

 ment. We have failed because we have not followed 

 nature with sufficient closeness. We require the 

 earnest endeavours of the experimental physiologist to 

 be combined in the closest association with the most 

 extended and searching investigations of the systemat- 

 ist. Either alone must of necessity be useless. 



Mr. Lawrence Balls informs us that his description 

 of "Gossvpiae" as a sub-order (instead of a tribe) had 

 heen taken from " an accepted authority on 

 systematv." He might have favoured us with the 

 name of the author in question. T have searched 

 through a fairly extensive botanical library and failed 

 to discover the authority to whom he mav be alluding. 



NO. 2397, VOL. 96] 



Bentham and Hooker, in their " Genera Plantarum," 

 place Gossypium in the tribe Hibisceae (which Mr. 

 Balls renders as Hibiscae), but they make no mention 

 of a sub-order " Gossypiae " (? Gossypeae). These are 

 no doubt trivial criticisms and are made only in the 

 spirit of "Hindu" and "Hindi." But admitting the 

 " accepted authority on systematy," is there any ad- 

 vantage in setting on one side the universally accepted 

 authorities on British botany? 



I am afraid Mr. Lawrence Balls simply tries to 

 obscure the main issue, raised in my i;eview, by citing 

 an example of careless orthography; the " Hindu" and 

 "Hindi-weed" already mentioned. Is it necessary to 

 explain that the word " Hindu " denotes the people or 

 the religion, while "Hindi" and "Hindustani" indi- 

 cate the languages of certain portions of India? These 

 are their most general acceptations, but neither could, 

 strictly speaking, be used as the name of a plant, 

 more especially when that plant never could have 

 come from India. The person who first used that 

 name, in its Egyptian signification, was very possibly 

 a follower of the school that seems to hold the view 

 that accuracy in systematic botany was an unpardon- 

 able offence. De Candolle, long j^ears ago, told us 

 that the aim of science was not to make names, but 

 to use names to distinguish plants. Does " Hindi- 

 weed " isolate a certain cotton plant from all others? 

 If it does not, it is a vulgar name that should find 

 no place in a scientific publication. 



Sir George Watt's "Wild and Cultivated Cotton 

 Plants of the World" (to which Mr. Balls refers us) 

 mentions Hindi- weed as being possibly a recessive 

 hybrid of the Moqui of Arizona, or perhaps rather of 

 the N'dargua cotton of Senegal. It is not advanced 

 as a name that can be accepted as distinguishing a 

 definite plant. But Mr. Balls himself is quoted by 

 Sir George (loc. cit., p. 182) as holding that Hindi- 

 weed "hybridises with the others and the Mendelian 

 splitting forms from the cross are very common, and 

 also go under the name of ' Hindi,' though they are 

 usually very tall, up to three metres. ' Hindi ' itself 

 is aboiat one metre high, and except in its seed reminds 

 me of American Uplands." We are thus told, by an 

 advocate of non-systematic studies, that " Hindi-weed " 

 may assume numerous forms and conditions until a 

 certain example of it might have to be spoken of as 

 not being Hindi-weed. Thus that vulgar Egvptian 

 name is by no means as "definite as any other," 

 though Mr. Balls in another passage assures us that 

 it is. It is a loose, popular name that could never 

 be taken seriouslv as the name of a cotton plant. The 

 issue raised by Mr. Balls as to the Hindi-weed having 

 a naked seed, while he seems to affirm that Sir George 

 Watt "during the primary division of the genus" 

 places it with fuzzy-seeded forms (a passage I have 

 failed to discover) is, however, outside the scope of a 

 review of Mr. Balls's book. 



Lastly, I admit that Mr. Balls's jest of scientific 

 names being merely useless duplicates of easier names 

 was not only feeble (as he now admits it to have been) 

 but highly misleading and utterly out of place. 



The Reviewer. 



THE KARAKORAM EXPEDITION. 



THE account of Cav. Dr. F. de Filippi's expe- 

 dition of 1914-15 to the eastern portion of 

 the Karakoram range, briefly noticed in Nature 

 of August >5> ^^^ "o^ been published in the 

 Geographical Journal (vol. xlvi., No. 2), with a 

 selection from the beautiful photographs taken by 

 Capt. Antilli, to whom this part of the varied and 



