526 



NA TURE 



[StlTKNiniiU 26. 1895 



The apparent orbit b : 



Major axis = 2" "656 



Minor axis = l""4So 



Angle of major axis = 173 '5 



„ ,, periastron = lS6'7 



Distance of star from centre = o"'63S 



The computed and observed places seem to justify the new 

 tlemenls given ab.5vc. The jieriod thus will hardly be varied 

 liyasmuchas ten years, while the resulting altenition will be 

 small in proportion. 



THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 



SECTION K. 



Botany. 



Opemno Address by W. T. Thiselton-Dver, M..^., 

 K.R.S., C.M.G., CLE., Director of the Royal 

 Gardens. 



The establishment of anew Section of the British .\ssociation, 

 •devoted to Botany, cannot but be regarded by the botanists of 

 tbU country as an event of the greatest importance. For it is 

 jiractically the first time that they have possessed an independent 

 organisation of their own. It is true that for some years past we 

 have generally been strong enough to form a separate department 

 of the old Biological Section D, on the platform of which so 

 many of us in the past have acted in some capacity or other, and 

 on which indeed many of us may be said to have made our first 

 appearance. We shall not start then on our new career without 

 the remembrance of filial affection for our parent, and the earnest 

 hope that our work may be worthy of its great traditions. 



The first meeting of the Section, or, as it was then called, 

 Commiitee, at Oxford was held in 1832. And though there 

 h.-v~ I ten from time to time some difference in the grouping of 

 the several biological sciences, the two great branches of biolog)- 

 have only now for the first lime formally severed the partner- 

 shi'> into which they entered on that occasion. That this 

 nee. if inevitable from force of circumstances, is in some 

 , a matter of regret, I do not deny. Sjiecialisation is 

 I • ' from scientific progress ; but it will defeat its own 



1 .^y if the s|>ecialist does not constantly keep in touch 



\ . fundamental principles which are common to all 



firganic nature. We shall have to take care that we do not drift 

 into a ix)sition of isolation. .Section I) undoubtedly afforded a 

 convenient op]X)rtunity for discussing many questions on which 

 it was of great advantage that workers in the two different fields 

 should compare their results and views. But I hope that by 

 means of occasional conferences we shall still, in some measure, 

 be able 10 preserve thus advantage. 



Retrospect. 



I confess I found it a great temptation to review, however 

 imjwrfectly, the history and fortunes of our subject while it 

 • •elongcfl 10 Section 1). But to have done so would have been 

 |.ractically to have written the history of botany in this country 

 since the first third of the century. S'cl I cannot pass over some 

 few striking events. 



I think that the earliest of these must undoubtedly be regarded 



a.s the most epoch-m.iking. I mean the formal publication by 



the LInnean Society, in 1833, of the first description of " the 



nucleus of the cell," by Robert Brown (" Misc. Bol. Works," 



i. 512). It seems difficult 10 realise that this may 1«; within the 



' 'I of some who arc now living amongst us. It is, 



f (K-culiar interest to me that the first person who 



' 1 'hjii all-important bo<ly, and indicated it in 



I I ll.iuir, thirty years earlier, in 1802. This 



.1 .... \\\. ,(; skill in applying the resources of art to 



ition of plant anatomy has never, I suppose been 



was "resident draughtsman for fifty years to the 



I lir Cardcn at Kew." And it was at Kew, and in a 



ii'l. I'haiiis 1,'raniii/olius, no doubt grown there, thai 



III' ' 



It h no little admiralion that, on refreshing 



iiiv r, Mri. to Rol)crt Brown's |>a|>er, I read 



i-h he gives in a footnote of the 

 I iiiliar to many of us who have been 



li..Klier>, c.khii/iud III ilic ...taminal hair of Tradrsiaiitia. .Sir 

 Jiftcph I looker ( Proc. linn. So<. , 1 887-88, 65 ) has well remarked 



NO. 1352, VOL. 52] 



that " the supreme importance of this observation, . . . Ictding 

 to undreamt-of conceptions of the fundamental phenomena of 

 Clonic life, is acknowledged by all investigators." It is singular 

 that so profound an ob.ser\er as Robert Brown should have himself 

 mis.sed the significance of what he saw. The world had to w ait 

 for the discover)- of protopl.asm by Von Mohl till 1S46. ami till 

 1850 for its identification with the sarcode of zoologists by Cohn, 

 who is still, I am happy to say, living and at work, and to 

 whom last year the Linnean Society did itself the honour of 

 presenting its medal. 



The Edinbui^h meeting of the .Vssociation, in 1S34. was the 

 occasion of the announcement of another memorable discover)- of 

 Robert Brown's. I will content myselfwith quoting Hofmeister's 

 (" Higher Cr)ptogamia,'" 432) account of it. " Robert Brown 

 was the discoverer of the jHilyembryony of the Coniferie. In a 

 later treatise he pointed out the origin of the pro-embr)o in large 

 cells of the endosperm, to which he gave the name of corpscula."' 

 The jH-riod of the forties, just half a century ago, looks in the 

 retrospect as one of almost dazzling discovery. To say nothing 

 of the formal appearance of protoplasm on the scene, the found- 

 ations were being laid in all directions of our modern botanical 

 mori)holog)\ \'et its contem|ioraries viewed it with a very 

 philosophical calm. Thwaites, who regariled Carpenter as his 

 master, described at the Oxford meeting in 1S47 the conjugation 

 of \}ne Diatomactt , and "distinctly indicated," as Carpenter 

 ("Memorial Sketch," 140) says, "that conjugation is the 

 primitive phase of sexual reproduction.' Berkeley informed me 

 that the announcement fell jierfeclly llat. .\ year or two later 

 Sumin.'iki came li> London with his splendid di.scovery (1S48) of 

 the archegonia of the fern, the aiuheridia having been first seen 

 by Nageli in 1844. Carpenter (hi. cil., 141) gave me, many 

 years after, a curiqus account of its reception. " At the Council 

 of the Ray Society, at which," he .said, " I advocated tlie re- 

 production of Suminski's book on the ' Ferns,' I was assured that 

 the close resemblance of the anlherozoids to spermatozoa Nva> 

 quite sufficient \iioo( that they could have nothing to do witli 

 vegetable reproduction. I do not think," he .tdded — and llu- 

 complaint is iiathetic — "that the men of the inesent generation, 

 who have been brought up in the light, quite apprehend (in this 

 as in other matters) the utter darkness in which we were then 

 groping, or fully recognise the deserts of those who hcl|icd them 

 to what they now enjoy." This was in 1875, ^^^ ^ supjwse is 

 not likely to be less true now. 



The Oxford meeting in i860 was the scene of the memorable 

 debate on the origin of species, at which it is interesting to 

 remember that Ilenslow presided. On that occa-sion Section 1) 

 re.iched its meridian. The battle w.as Homeric. However little 

 to the ta.ste of its .author, the launching of his great theory was, 

 at any rate, dignified with a not inconsiderable explosion. It 

 may be that it is not given to the men of our day to rulUe the 

 dull level of iniblic placidity with disturbing and far-reaching 

 ideas. But if it were, I doubt whether we have, or need now , 

 the fierce energy which inspired then either the attack or the 

 defence. When we met again in Oxford last year the champion 

 of the old conflict stood in the place of honour, acclaimed of all 

 men, a beautiful and venerable figure. We did not know then 

 that that w.as to be his farewell. 



The b.attle was not in vain. Six years afterwards, at Notting- 

 ham, Sir Josejih Hooker delivered his classical lecture on Insular 

 Floras. It implicitly accepted the new doctrine, and applied it 

 with admirable effect to a field which had long waited for an 

 illuminating principle. The lecture itself has since remained 

 one of the corner-stones of that rational theory of the geo- 

 graphical distribution of plants which may, I think, be claimed 

 fairly as of purely Engli.sh origin. 



Hensi.ow. 

 .\ddressing you as I do at Ipswich, there is one name written 

 in the annals of our old Section which I cannot pa.ss over — that 

 of I lensloH. I le was the Secretary of the liinlogical Section at 

 its first meeting in 1S32, and its rre.sidcnt at Bristol in r836. I 

 sup|)ose there are few men of this century who have indirectly 

 more influenced the current of human thought. For in ijreal 

 measure I think it will not be contested that we owe Darwin to 

 him. -As Konlane^ has told us (" Memorial Notices," 13) ; " His 

 letters written to I'rof. Ilenslow during his voyage rouml the 

 world overflow with feelings of aflection, veneration, andoliliga- 

 tion to his accomplished master and dearest friend— feelings 

 which throughout his life he retained with no diminished 

 intensity. .\s he used himself to say, before he knew Prof. 



