January 29, 1920] 



NATURE 



583 



point of view and single method of attack, there is 

 developing a perspective of other points of view and 

 other methods of attack. 

 ' This does not mean a multiple attack on each 



j problem by each investigator. We must remain 



; morphologists, physiologists, and ecologists, each 



group with its special technique and special kind of 

 data. But it does mean a better estimation of the 

 results, a watchful interest in the possibilities of other 

 methods of attack, a general toning-down of positive- 

 ness in conclusions. We all realise now that plants 

 are synthetic, and that is quite a notable advance 

 from that distant time when we thought of them 

 only as objects subservient to laws of nomenclature. 

 This increasing synthetic view is resulting in a proper 

 estimate of problems. The data secured by each 

 investigation constitute an invitation to further inves- 

 tigation. We have in mind the whole problem, and 

 not scraps of information. In short, the synthetic 

 view has developed about our problems the atmosphere 

 in which they actually exist. 



(3) A third tendency, which seems to me to be the 

 most significant one, is the growing recognition of 

 the fact that structures are not static — that is, inevit- 

 able to their last detail. As a morphologist I may 

 recall to your memory the old method of recording the 

 facts in reference to the development of such a struc- 

 ture as the embryo of seed-plants. Not only every 

 cell-division in the ontogeny was recorded, but also 

 the planes of every cell-division. The conception at the 

 back of such records was that the programme of onto- 

 geny was fixed to its minutest detail. It is probably 

 true that such a structure is about as uniform in its 

 development as any structure can be, but it has 

 become evident now that many of the details recorded 

 were not significant. Instead of cataloguing them 

 as of equal value, we must learn to distinguish those 

 that are relatively fixed from those that are variables. 

 In the same way, much of the older work in 

 anatomy must be regarded as records of details of 

 which the relative values were unknown. Even the 

 structures involved in vascular anatomy are not static, 

 but many a phylogenetic connection has been formu- 

 lated on the conception of the absolute rigidity of 

 such structures in their minutest detail. This con- 

 ception has made it possible, of course, to develop as 

 many static opinions as there are variables in 

 structure. 



Perhaps the greatest mass of details has been 

 accumulated by the cytologists in connection with 

 their examination of the machinery of nuclear division 

 and nuclear fusion. In no other field has the con- 

 ception of the rigidity of the structures involved 

 become more fixed, even to the minutest variation in 

 form and position. Of course, we all realise that 

 any field of investigation must be opened up by record- 

 ing all the facts obtained, but we must realise that 

 this is only the preliminary stage. The time has 

 come when even the recorded facts of cytology are 

 being estimated on the basis of relative values — that 

 is, the inevitable things are being differentiated from 

 the variables. 



The same situation is developing in the field of 

 genetics. We all recall the original rigidity of the 

 so-called laws of inheritance. It was natural to 

 begin the cultivation of this field with the conception 

 that the programme of heredity is immutable, and 

 that definite structures are inevitable, no matter what 

 the conditions may be. There was probably more 

 justification for this conception in this field, on the 

 basis of the early investigations, than in any other, 

 but experience has begun to enlarge the perspective 

 wonderfully. The rapidly accumulating facts are 



I becoming so various that consistent explanations 



NO. 2622, VOL. 104] 



require a high degree of mental agility. More funda- 

 mental, however, is the recognition of the fact that 

 the problem of ' heredity involves not only germinal 

 constitution, which gives such rigidity as there is, 

 but also the numerous factors of environment. In 

 other words, such problems have become synthetic 

 in the highest degree, making possible results that are 

 anything but static. 



In considering these illustrations of the tendency to 

 recognise that facts are not all pigeon-holed and of 

 equal value, it is becoming more and more obvious 

 that our botanical problems are, in general, the 

 application of physics and chemistry to plants; that 

 laws, when we really discover them, are by definition 

 static, but that their operation results in anything but 

 static structures. In other words, structure must 

 respond to law, but the particular law that is gripping 

 the situation may be one of many. 



With such evolutionary tendencies in mind, what 

 is the forecast for botanical research? I wish to 

 direct attention to three important features that seem 

 certain to characterise it : 



_(i) It will be necessary for the investigator who 

 wishes to have a share in the progress of the science, 

 rather than merely to continue the card-catalogue 

 assembling of random data, to have a broader 

 botanical training than has seemed necessary hereto- 

 fore. Our danger has been that the cultivation of a 

 special technique, which, of course, is necessary, is 

 apt to limit the horizon to the boundary of that 

 technique. In some cases the result to the investigator 

 has been more serious than limiting his horizon ; it 

 has led him to discredit other methods of attack as 

 of little importance. In case this attitude is asso- 

 ciated with the training of students, it is continued 

 and multiplied by pedigree culture. The product of 

 certain laboratories is recognised as of this type, and 

 it is out of line with the evident direction of progress. 



This demand of the future does not mean that one 

 must specialise less than formerlv. It is obvious that, 

 with the increasing intricacy of problems and the 

 inevitable development of technique, we must specialise 

 more than ever. What the new demand means is 

 not to specialise less, but to see to it that every 

 speciality has developed about it a botanical perspec- 

 tive. In other words, instead of an investigator 

 digging himself into a pit, he must do his work on 

 a mountain-top. This secures some understanding 

 and appreciation of other special fields under cultiva- 

 tion, some of which will certainly interlock with his- 

 own field. To meet this situation will demand more 

 careful attention to the training of investigators than 

 it has received. Interested, and even submerged, in 

 our own work, as we must be, still we must realise 

 that the would-be investigator must develop his atmo- 

 sphere as well as his technique, or he will remain 

 medieval. 



To be more concrete, the morphologist in the 

 coming days must appreciate the relation that physio- 

 logy and ecology hold to his own field. This is far 

 from meaning that he must be trained in physiological 

 and ecological investigation, but he must know its 

 possibilities. The same statement applies in turn to 

 the physiologist and ecologist, and so on through the 

 whole list of specialities. 



This first forecast of the future applies to the 

 necessary training of investigators rather than to 

 investigation itself. 



(2) A second important feature that is sure to be 

 included in the botanical investigation of the future 

 is co-operation in research. During the last few 

 years the desirability of co-operation has been some- 

 what stressed, and perhaps the claims for it have been 

 urged somewhat unduly. This was natural when 



