^8 



NATURE 



[March i8, 1920 



Letters to the Editor. 



(The Edixior does not hold himself responsible for opinions 

 expressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to 

 return, or to correspond -with the writers of, rejected manu- 

 scripts intended for . this or any other part of Nature. No 

 notice is taken of anonymous communications.] 



Museums and the State. 



1 HAVE read with deep interest the leading article 

 entitled "The State and the National Museums" 

 which appeared in Nature of March ii. As a 

 zoologist my interest is chiefly centred in the Natural 

 History Museum at South Kensington, and 1 most 

 heartily agree with the statement that •" the develop- 

 ment of the Natural History Museum has been 

 grievously hampered by the persistent attempt made 

 to fit it to a system devised . . . especially for the 

 great library [at BloomsburyJ, which has, in fact, 

 always tended to overshadow the rest of the museum," 



Historically, as you point out, the museum at South 

 Kensington is the offspring of the mother institution 

 at Bloomsbury, but the daughter is now fully grown 

 up, and should be completely free from parental con- 

 trol. It seems quite anomalous that a man chosen 

 for his knowledge of antiquities and literature should 

 be the supreme head over the greatest collections of 

 animals and plants which exist anywhere in the world. 



Few Englishmen have any adequate idea of the 

 value of the asset represented by these collections. 

 Most of them, like Lord Sudeley, whom you quote, 

 regard the museum merely as an instrument of 



{jopular education. But this is only one of its 

 esser functions. Its main value lies in the fact 

 that it is the repository of type-specimens of the 

 majority of the determined species of animals and 

 plants. In these days of the energetic development 

 of newer lines of research in zoology, it must never 

 be forgotten that systematic zoology is the basal 

 science, the pre-requisite for successful advance in 

 any other branch ot the subject. 



Just as it is necessary that standard measures of 

 length, weight, etc., should be stored in some central 

 repository, so it is necessary that there should be a 

 central institution in which every biologist should be 

 able to determine accurately the species with which 

 he is working. The agriculturists of Mauritius are 

 bothered by an insect pest which they regard as 

 identical with one of the common insects of the island. 

 Measures are taken for its extermination, and these 

 prove unsuccessful. It is then discovered, on refer- 

 ence of the matter to South Kensington, that the pest 

 is a foreign one accidentally imported from the West 

 Indies! Examples of this kind could be multiplied 

 indefinitely, but one more may suffice. The fishery 

 authorities of South Africa desired to introduce the 

 ierring into their coastal waters, but the experts 

 at South Kensington were able to point out that, 

 although different species of herring exist in various 

 parts of the world, in both northern and southern 

 hemispheres and east and west, yet all these species 

 are confined within the limits prescribed by two 

 • isotherms of annual temperatures, and that South 

 Africa lies outside these limits; so that if herring 

 were liberated near its coast, they would, if they 

 survived, at once swim southward into cooler waters. 

 The supreme government of the t\yo museums at 

 Bloomsbury and South Kensington is vested in three 

 principal trustees, viz. the Archbishop of Canterbury, 

 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Speaker of 

 the House of Commons, not one of whom has any 

 necessary connection with or knowledge of science. 



The scantiness of this knowledge may, indeed, be 

 gauged by the scornful remarks made by the Speaker 

 during the war in reference to the alleged purely 

 NO. 2629, VOL. 105] 



academic interest of studies on Microlepidoptera at 

 the very time that the War Office was imploring the 

 aid of specialists in this department in fighting a pest 

 which was destroying its stores of biscuits. 



The article in Nature advocates placing the museum 

 under the control of a Government Department — 

 '■'■Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.^' It seems to me 

 that the ideal of the present Government, viz. a small 

 committee of broad-minded men, is the correct one; 

 only the personnel requires to be changed. 



It has been cynically observed that the constitution 

 of the present committee was chosen at a time when 

 the Archbishop, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and 

 the Speaker were the three men in England least 

 likely to be bribed. If for them were substituted the 

 presidents of the Royal Society, of the Zoological 

 Society, and of the Geological Society, the control of 

 the museum would be in the hands of a committee 

 of scientific eminence, and one peculiarly susceptible 

 to the pressure of scientific opinion. 



In view of the unique importance of the collections, 

 it is surely essential to have a distinguished man of 

 science presiding over each division of the collection, 

 and for the services of such a man the museum ought 

 to be in a position to pay generously. In the past the 

 museum has been far better served than it deserved 

 to be ; it has, in fact, exploited the scientific en- 

 thusiasm of young men. In the long run, however, 

 low pay will evoke inferior service. As the present 

 holders of positions in the museum die or resign, 

 clever men will be reluctant to step into their places if 

 to do so means to embrace a life of poverty. A govern- 

 ing body such as I suggest would be in a far better 

 position to estimate the real value of the services of 

 these experts than one which is too much inclined to 

 regard them as a set of obscure academic recluses. 



E. W. MacBride. 



Roval College of Science, Zoological 

 Department, South Kensington, 

 London, S.W., March 12. 



The leading article in Nature of March 11 on "The 

 State and the National Museums " directs attention to 

 a reform the need for which has been increasingly felt 

 by those especially interested in our great national 

 museums. Your summary of their haphazard history 

 explains why their relation to the Government is out 

 of date; why between them there is an overlap which, 

 despite the advantage of competition, causes waste and 

 inconvenience and is a hindrance to efficiency ; and 

 why our Museum of Natural Science is administered 

 bv a board of trustees planned — so far as it was 

 planned and has not been a fortuitous aggregate of 

 distinguished men — in reference to •le library and 

 departments at Bloomsbury. The titles of the museums 

 are a product of this erratic growth and misleading 

 to the public; the Natural History Museum is actuallv 

 the British Museum of Natural Science, since, accord- 

 ing to recent usage (cf. e.g. Webster's Dictionary), 

 natural history is restricted to zoology, or perhaps to 

 biology, while the adjacent museum is the British 

 Museum of Physical Science. 



Dissatisfaction with our museum administrative 

 system has been clearly growing for years, but there 

 has been no particular opportunity to secure reform 

 or to organise a sufficient bodv of opinion to convince 

 the Government of its need. Now. however, the estab- 

 lishment of the Department of Scientific and Indus- 

 trial Research has orovided an organisation to which 

 the manatrement of the scientific museums might be 

 apnropriately entrusted. 



The suggestion, however, to extend that Depart- 

 mer*^ so as to include all learning and research requires 

 cautious consideration, since it would throw on that 



