52S 



NA TURE 



[September 26, 1895 



ifk 



ctvrrcspondent : — " I[|)p>k thai the neglect of natural histor)-i 'n 

 all its multitude of branches, was the grossest defect of our old 

 S)stem of training|fotf the young ; and, further, that little or 

 nothing has been diMJiby way of remedy for that defect in the 

 attempts made to alter or reform that system." I am sure 

 that the importance and weight of this testimony, coming as it 

 does from one whose training and sym|)athies have always been 

 literary, cannot be denied. That there is already some revival 

 of Henslow's methods, I judge from the fact that I have re- 

 ceived applications from Board Sehot)ls, amounting to some 

 hundreds, for surplus s|)ecimens from the Kew Museums. With- 

 out a special machinery for the purpose I cannot do much, and 

 jierhaps it is well. But my staff have willingly done what was 



IKissiblc, and from the letters I have received I gather that the 

 abuur has not been wholly niissi>enl. 



MfSEUM Arrangement. 



This leails me to the last branch of Henslow's scientific work 

 on which I am able to touch, that of the arrangement of museums, 

 especially those which being local have little meaning unless 

 their purpf>se is .strictly eilucational. I think it is now generally 

 admitted that, both in the larger and narrower aspects of the 

 question, his idea.s. which were shared in some measure by 

 Edward Kiirbes, were not merely far in advance of his lime, but 

 were es.senti;dly sound. .\nd here I cannot help remarking that 

 the zoologists have perhaps profited more by his teaching than the 

 Ititanisls. I <Io not know how far Sir William Flower and Prof. 

 Lankester would admit the influence of Henslow's ideas. But, 

 .so far as my knowledge goes, 1 am not aware that, at any rate in 

 Eurippe, there is anything to be seen in public museums com- 

 |>aralile to the educational work accomplished by the one at the 

 College of Surgeons and the Natural Histor)- Museum, and by 

 the other at Oxford. 



I have often thought it singular that in botany we have not 

 kept |Kicc in this matter with our brother naturalists. I do not 

 doubt that vegetable morphology and a vast number of important 

 facts in evolution, as illustrated from the vegetable kingdom, 

 might be presented to the eye in a fascinating way in a carefully 

 arranged museum. The most successful and, indeed, almost the 

 only attempt which has been made in this direction is that at 

 Cambridge, which, 1 iK-lieve, is due to Mr. Gardiner. But our 

 technical methods for preserving specimens still leave much to 

 desire. Something more satisfactory will, it may be hoped, 

 some day be devised, and the whole subject is one which is well 

 worth the careful consideration of our Section. Henslow at 

 lea.st cfTcclcd a vast im|)rovenienl in the mode of displaying 

 iKitanical objects ; and a collection prepared by his o« n hands, 

 « hich was e.thibited at one of the Paris exhibitions, excited the 

 warm admiration of the Krench botanists, who always apjireciate 

 the clear illu.stration of morphological facts. 



Olii School ok Nati-rai. History. 



If the old school of natural histor)* of which Henslow in his 

 day wa-s a living spirit is at present, as seems to be the case, 

 continually losing its hold upon us, this has certainly not been 

 due to its want of value as an educational discipline, or to its 

 sterility in contributing new ideas to human knowledge. 

 Darwin's "Origin of .S|>ecies" may certainly be regarded as its 

 offspring, and of this Huxley (Proc. A'.S., xliv. xvii.) says with 

 justice : " It Lsdoublful if any single book except the ' Principia,' 

 ever worked «> great and ra])id a revolution in .science, or made sn 

 deep an impression on the general mind." \ct Darwin's 

 biographer, in that admirable " I.ife" which ranks «ith the few 

 reiilly great biographies in our language, remarks (i. 155) : " In 

 rending his liooks one is reminded of the older naturali.sts rather 

 than of the modem school of writers. He w.-is a naturalist in 

 the olil si'ns<- of the word, that is, a man who works at ni.tny 

 li ' ', not merely a specialist in one." This is no 



' > not exactly hit off the distinction iKJtwccn 



It ., .^hich has gone out of fashion and that which 



li;i- come in. The older workers in biology were occupied 

 nininly with the external or, at any rate, grosser features of 

 iprganisms and their relation to .surrouniling ronditiims ; the 

 molrrn, on Ihn other hand, arc engaged on the sluily of internal 

 i'f ' "ire. Work in the lalwiralory, with its ncces- 



- IS the place of research in the field. One 



I . s;iy that Ihcuseof the com|v>und microscope 



>'■ ~is. .\sa ( Iray has com|>ared Kol>ert Brown 



V "two British naturalists " who have " more 



tlkxi aii> 01I1CI1, impressed their influence upon S-Mcncc in the 



NO. 1352. VOL. 52] 



nineteenth century" (NATfRE, x. 80). Now it is noteworthy 

 that Robert Brown ilid all his work with a simple microscope. 

 And Francis Darwin writes of his father: "It strikes us 

 nowadays as extraordinarj- that he should have had no compound 

 microscope when he went his Aajf/i' voy.ige ; but in this he fol- 

 lowed the advice of Rolicrt Brow n, who was an authority on such 

 matters "(i. 145). One often nieets with persons, and some- 

 times of no small eminence, who speak as if there were some 

 necessary antagonism between the old and the new studies. 

 Thus I have heard a ilistinguished syslcmalist describe the micro- 

 sco|)e as a curse, and a no less distinguished morphologist speak 

 of a herbarium having its i>roi>er place on a bonfire. To me I 

 confess this anathematisation of the instruments of research 

 proper to any branch of our subject is not easily intelligible. \"et 

 in the case of Darw in himself it is certain that if his earlier work 

 may be said to rest solely on the older methotls, his later 

 researches lake their place w ith the w ork of the new school. .Vt 

 our last meeting Pfeffer vindicated one of his latest and most 

 im)K)rtant observations. 



The case of Robert Brown is even more striking. He is 

 equally great whether we class him with the older or the modern 

 school. In fact, so far as botany in this country is concerned, 

 he may be regarded as the founder of the latter. It is to him 

 that we owe the establishment of the structure of the ovule and 

 its development into the seed. Even more important were the 

 discoveries to which I have already referred, which ultimately 

 led to the establishment of the group of Gymnosv>erms. "No 

 more important discovery," says Sachs (" History," 142), 

 " was ever made in the domain of comimralive morjihology and 

 systematic botany. The first steps towards this result, which 

 was clearly brought out by Hofineister twenty-five years later, 

 were secured by Robert Brown's researches, and he was 

 incidentally led to these researches bv some difficulties in the 

 constrtiction of the seed of an .\ustralian genus.'' Vet it may 

 be remembered that he began his career as naturalist to 

 Flinders's expedition for the exploration of -Vustralia. He 

 returned to England with 4000 " for the most )mrt new species 

 of plants.'' And these have formed the foundation of our 

 knowledge of the flora of that c<mlinent. Brown's chief work 

 was done between 1S20 and 1840, and, as Sachs {/ot. cit., 13Q, 

 140) tells us, "was lietter appreciated during that time in 

 Germany than in any other country." 



.MoiiKRN School. 



The real founder of the modern teaching in this country in 

 both branches of biolog>' I cannot doubt was Carpenter. The 

 first edition of his admirable " Principles of Comi>:irative 

 Physiology" was published in 1838. the last in 1854. All who 

 owe, as I do, a deep <lebt of gratitude to that book will agree 

 with Huxley (" Memorial Sketch," 67) in regarding it as " by 

 far the best general survey of the whole field of life and of the 

 broad principles of biology which had been produced up to the 

 time of its publication. Indeed," he adds, " although the 

 fourth edition is now in many respects out of date. I do not 

 know its ctpial for breadth of view, sobriety of speculation, and 

 accuracy of detail." 



The charm of a wide and philosoiihic survey of the difl'erent 

 forms under which life presents it.self could not but attract the 

 attention of teachers. Rolleston elaborated a course of instruc- 

 tion in zoology at Oxford in which the structures described in 

 the lecture-room were subsc<|uently «-orked out in the laboratory. 

 In 1872 Huxley organised the memorable course in elementary 

 biology at .South Kensington which has since, in its essential 

 features, been adopted throughout the country. In the following 

 year, during Huxley's absence abro.id through ill-health, I 

 arranged, at his request, a course of instruction on the same 

 lines for the Vegetable Kingdom. 



That the development of the new leaching was inevitable can 

 hardly be doubted, and I for my part am not disposed to regret 

 the share I look in it. But it was not obvious, and certainly it 

 was nr>l cxjK'Cted, that it would tt» so large an extent cut the 

 ground from under the feet of the old Natural History studies. 

 The consequences are mther serious, and 1 lliinl; it is worth 

 while |K)inting them out. 



In a va.sl empire like our own there is a good deal of work to 

 Ik* done and a good many posts to be filled, for which the old 

 Natural History traininc was not merely a useful but even a 

 necessary preparation. But at the piesent lime the universilies 

 almost entirely fail to supply men suited to the work. They 

 neither care to collect, nor have Ihcy the skilled aptitude for 



