NATURE 



[November 2, 1899 



and physics is brought out. The pupil who is fortunate 

 enough to receive instruction on these Hnes will be placed 

 in the receptive intellectual attitude which should be the 

 aim of all scientific education. 



Natural and Artificial Methods of Ventilation. Pp. 66 

 + xvi. (London : Robert Boyle and Son, Ltd., 1899.) 

 There is a considerable difference of opinion among 

 experts as to the most satisfactory system of ventilation. 

 The system by which fresh, warm air is forced into rooms 

 at the top while foul air escapes at the bottom has been 

 introduced into a number of buildings ; but the compilers 

 of the present volume give extracts and diagrams from 

 papers and reports to show that this method is wrong 

 m principle, and inefficient in practice. It is held that 

 the heating of a building should always be separate and 

 distinct from that of the air supply, and that the only 

 satisfactory means of ventilation is obtained by extracting 

 the vitiated air near the ceilings of rooms, and admitting 

 the fresh air at lower levels. This " natural " system has 

 been successfully introduced by Messrs. Boyle into several 

 public buildings. 



Man, the Microcosm. Part L The Nature of Man. By 

 Leonard Hall, M.A. Pp. 82. (London : Williams 

 and Norgate, 1899.) 

 Defining a monad as any living organism which con- 

 sists of only one cell, the author's thesis is that man is a 

 community of monads, each of which is a conscious 

 being, and that " human consciousness must consist of 

 the combined and co-ordinated consciousness of the in- 

 dividual monads." The theory is used to explain many 

 facts concerning the nature of man as an individual and 

 as a member of a social community. 



The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist. Edited 

 by J. Romilly Allen. New Series. Vol. v. Pp. 288. 

 (London : Bemrose and Sons, Ltd., 1899.J 

 Many articles and notes of interest to all students of 

 archaeology are contained in this new volume, com- 

 prising the four quarterly numbers issued during the 

 present year. The numerous illustrations of places and 

 objects of archfeological significance add to the attractive- 

 ness of a volume which appeals to every one interested 

 in antiquities. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opiniotis ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

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

 manuscritts intended for this or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.'] 



Botany and the Indian Forest Department. 



In the issue of Nature of this date I find the second part of 

 Sir G. King's presidential address of Section K, Botany, 

 delivered at the Dover meeting of the British Association. At 

 the end of that address Sir G. King has made a strong attack on 

 the Indian Forest Department, and on the teaching of botany 

 at Coopers Hill College. He maintains that the forest officers 

 trained in this country go out to India with an insufficient know- 

 ledge of systematic botany, and that they, on arrival in India, 

 are not encouraged to familiarise themselves with the contents of 

 the forests under their charge. 



These assertions are in some respects not in accordance with 

 the facts of the case, and in others they show that Sir G. King, 

 in spite of his long Indian experience, has failed to grasp the 

 real issues. I trust you will permit me to substantiate these two 

 points. 



- To begin with, Sir G. King puts the cart before the horse. 

 If, as he maintains, the ordinary forest officer educated in 

 England now arrives in India without sufficient knowledge to 

 enable him to recognise from their botanical characters the most 

 well-marked Indian trees, it is chiefly due to the fact that it is 



NO. 1566, VOL. 61] 



now a days almost impossible to secure a botanical teacher in 

 this country who can impart the necessary knowledge to the 

 students. Sir G. King feels this himself, hence his lament- 

 ations, at the end of his address, over the decay of the study of 

 systematic botany in Britain. I feel sure that Sir W. Thiselton- 

 Dyer will bear me out when I state that no botanical teacher 

 has been appointed to Coopers Hill College except with his,, 

 and latterly also with Dr. D. H. Scott's, advice. They 

 have been good enough to recommend to us the gentlemen 

 whom they considered most suitable for our requirements, 

 but, alas ! not one of them, though all were excellent and 

 even famous botanists in other respects, was a systematic 

 botanist in the sense demanded by Sir G. King. Hence I must 

 turn round upon him and say : " Provide well-equipped system- 

 atic botanists, and we shall be only too glad to have one of 

 them." In other words, the main difficulty lies with the 

 botanists of the present age, and not with the Forest Depart- 

 ment. 



On the other hand, we are not free from blame. Until the 

 year 1890 botany was a compulsory subject in our entrance 

 examination, but in that year it was, against my advice, made 

 an optional subject. This, I believe, was due to the influence 

 of the headmasters of our great public schools, who desired to 

 pass their pupils straight into the service, without being obliged 

 to teach special subjects, such as botany. I do not desire to 

 discuss the general question here involved, but I do wish to 

 state that the action in the direction just indicated was decidedly 

 injurious to our special requirements. I am happy to say that 

 during the last year botany has once more been placed amongst 

 those subjects which every candidate for entrance into the 

 forest branch of Coopers Hill College will have to take up. 



As for myself, I may state that, ever since I started the 

 forest branch of this College in 1885, I have constantly urged 

 our botanical teachers to extend the study of systemadc botany 

 at the expense of other branches, such as physiology. But 

 what with young men trained on the ordinary lines of our 

 public schools, and with teachers with a decided leaning to 

 branches of botany other than systematic, it has been a hard 

 struggle. The otherwise excellent teachers of botany, whom 

 we have had so far, did their best to take up systematic botany 

 on the lines required by us ; but that is a branch not learned in 

 a day, and the first two of our botanists left us, for better 

 appointments than we could offer, when they had fallen in with 

 our requirement. 



And yet I think Sir G. King goes too far when he states 

 that the ordinary forest officer educated in England is unable to 

 recognise from their botanical characters the most well-marked 

 Indian trees. Cases like this do, no doubt, occur ; but I an* 

 sure that Sir G. King's assertion does not hold good in the case 

 of many of the men who have been sent to India. Indeed, 

 several of them have developed a decided leaning towards 

 systematic botany. At the same time, the task is, in a great part 

 of India, far more difficult than would appear from Sir G. King's 

 words. I should like to know what he understands by "the 

 most well-marked Indian trees." There are some 4000 different 

 species of trees and woody shrubs in Burma, and about half 

 that number in Bengal-Assam. If Sir G. King expects our 

 forest officers on arrival in the country to recognise even a 

 moderate fraction of these species, then he aims at impossi- 

 bilities, and his enthusi.asm for systematic botany has carried 

 him far beyond reasonable limits. To do what he requires 

 demands a thoroughly trained botanical specialist ; and even 

 such a one would require many years to become acquainted 

 with the trees, shrubs and herbs (as demanded by Sir G. King) 

 of an Indian jungle in Burma, Bengal and many other parts of 

 India. For such things the ordinary Indian forest officer has 

 no time. 



The statement made by Sir G. King, that the young forest 

 officer on arrival in India is not encouraged to familiarise himself 

 with the contents of the forests under his charge, is not in accord- 

 ance with the facts of the case. On the contrary, it is made the 

 first duty of the young officer, apart from the study of the 

 language of the people. Sir G. King himself enumerates four- 

 teen forest officers who, during the last thirty years, have done 

 good botanical work. Of these, five have made important con- 

 tributions to the systematic botany of India. Of the other nine, 

 one was trained at Coopers Hill. Considering that all the men 

 sent out from Coopers Hill are as yet young, and that to my 

 certain knowledge several of them are likely to become botanists, 

 I think Sir G. King's strictures are not justified. Unfortunately, 



