NATURE 



449 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1S72 



BOTANICAL MUSEUMS 



THE question of the future relations of the national 

 herbarium at the British Museum to that at Kew is 

 at present engaging the attention of the Royal Commission 

 on Science. The minute of 24th July last shows that it 

 will presently be dealt with by the Treasury. On the 

 motion of Messrs. Benlham and Ball, at the recent meet- 

 ing of the British Association at Brighton, the Committee 

 of the Biological Section secured an instruction to the 

 Council of the Association to take action in connection 

 with this question in the interests of botanical science ; 

 and the question has been submitted to the readers 

 of Nature in an anonymous article on "Botanical 

 Museums," published on the 23rd March last year. 



The authorship of this article was unknown to me until 

 I was summoned to give evidence before the Royal Com- 

 mission on Science. At the request of the President of 

 the Commission, the proof of Mr. Bentham's evidence was 

 placed before me ; I then saw that the article alluded to 

 was incorporated in it, and in the statement with which 

 Mr. Bentham introduced it I read his history of its prepa- 

 ration and publication. 



In dealing with this part of Mr. Bentham's evidence, I 

 informed the Commissioners (O. 7,739-40) that the opinions, 

 and arguments stated in it had been, two years before, 

 submitted by Dr. Hooker, throuLjh the Board of Works, to 

 the trustees of the British Museum, and had been an- 

 swered by my predecessor, Mr. Bennett, to the satisfaction, 

 as I then understood, not only of the trustees, but of the 

 authorities at the Board of Works, and that the article on 

 " Botanical Museums " was merely a reproduction of this 

 official paper, without any reference to its answer. 



After supplying the date of this official document, my 

 examination, under the guidance of the Commissioner who 

 was then dealing with me, took another direction. On 

 subsequent reflection I therefore felt it necessary to ask 

 leave to present a detailed reply to the Commissioner, 

 which was granted. This reply is printed with the other 

 evidence in the recently printed Blue Book (p. 44J. 



That the readers of Nature who have already perused 

 Mr. Bentham's article may have the opportunity of con- 

 sidering my answer, I submit it to them, earnestly desiring 

 that this question now raised should be fully and exhaust- 

 ively considered, and that no hasty or one-sided judgment 

 should be arrived at ; being thoroughly convinced that the 

 action to be taken by the Treasury, whatever it may be, 

 will seriously influence the whole future of the science of 

 botany in England. 



I desire to submit to the Commissioners my views :-^ 

 (I.) On the statements contained in Mr. Bentham's paper, 

 and (II.) on the matters naturally flowing out of these 

 statements. 



I. The statements contained in tlie paper 

 I. The views expressed by Mr. Bentham regarding the 

 main purposes of a botanical museum and herbarium, and 

 the requirements of a collection for such a close study of 

 plants as would supply a "sound foundation upon which 

 the science of botany can be usefully established," arise 

 from his estimating the science of botany as limited to 

 that particular department of it to which he has devoted 



his life, and in which he has done important service. 

 The profound study of plants is, in his view, " their accu- 

 rate determination and practical classification," and he 

 states that he requires for its pro;ecutioa nothing more 

 than an exhaustive herbarium of the fragments of plants 

 supplying the diagnostic characters at present employed 

 for distinguishing genera and species, with a complete 

 library and staff of officers. This is, in my opinion, a 

 very defective estimate of the science of botany, and of 

 the materials required for its advancement. 



Robert Brown took a very different view of the profound 

 study of plants, and in the Botanical Department of the 

 British Museum he tried to develope that masterly grasp 

 of the science which is to be found in his works, by 

 illustrating, as far as possible, the structure of all plants 

 from the lowest to the highest, both existing and extinct. 

 Accordingly, the National Herbarium, large as it is, forms 

 but a part of the botanical collections. The specimens 

 placed in the outer rooms, which exhibit chiefly the form 

 and structure of the stems and roots of plants, are as 

 necessary a part of the purely scientific collection as the 

 dried foliage and flowers in the herbarium. While such 

 specimens " excite the interest," and " gratify the curiosity " 

 (and, what is more important, instruct the minds) " of the 

 general public," these are very far. from being their prin- 

 cipal, still further from being their only purpose in a 

 botanical museum, as Mr. Bentham appears to imply. 

 The scientific investigator whose notion of systematic 

 botany is somewhat larger than ascertaining the technical 

 name and order of a plant, consults these specimens as 

 he does the herbarium. It is, therefore, a mistake to 

 suppose that they, " when once placed, require no further 

 handling." 



The purely scientific collection of the British Museum 

 consists of : — I. The herbarium, comprising {a) the general 

 herbarium, ih) the British herbarium, (c) various sepa- 

 rate small and complete herbaria of historical interest. 

 II. The structural series, comprising {(i) the fruit collec- 

 tion, {b) the collection of gums, resins, and other natural 

 products, U) the general collection, exhibiting the form 

 and structure of plants, and consisting of the larger speci- 

 mens chiefly exhibited to the public ; and (d) the micro- 

 scopical preparations, illustrating the minute structure of 

 recent and fossil plants. 



2. The limitation of the science of botany to the plants 

 now existing on the earth is another grave defect. No 

 subject has recently received more attention from biolo- 

 gists than the relation between existing and extinct plants 

 and animals. Every philosophic estimate, or systematic 

 classification of the one kingdom or the other must in- 

 clude the fossil as well as the recent. This is fully ac- 

 knowledged and acted upon by zoologists, and no better 

 illustration can be adduced than Prof. Huxley's " Intro- 

 duction to the Classification of Animals" (1869). In 

 botany also, in the standard and only complete Genera 

 Plantannn, by Endlicher, the fossils arc ranged in their 

 systematic position with the recent plants. It is true that 



j the Genera Plantarum now in progress, of which Mr. 

 lientham is one of the authors, ignores all extinct plants. 

 This retrogade step is in entire accordance with the views 

 expressed by Mr. Bentham in Nature. A systematic 

 account of the Lycopodiacece which took no notice of the 

 arborescent forms of palreozoic age, or of the Cycadea 

 which ignored the numerous forms and remarkable varia- 

 tions of this order in the secondary rocks, would be 

 obviously very incomplete and unsatisfactory. In forming 

 a collection to supply a sound foundation for the science 

 of botany, it would be as reasonable to exclude the plants 

 of any existing botanical province — say Australia — as to 

 omit those which have existed at any particular period of 

 the earth's history — say that of the Wealden. 



3. The distinction which Mr. Bentham draws between 

 a herbarium " for the close study of plants " and one for 

 their "rapid determination without dissection" is most 



A A 



