264 



NATURE 



[May 



written in capital letters) is an indispensable part 

 of the apparatus of scientific education. On glanc- 

 ing' over those names that are incorporated in the 

 body of the text or attached to important illustra- 

 tions, one cannot but remark how very English 

 the experimental side of physiology has become. 



Breadth of outlook, to which the author lays 

 some claim in his preface, has been secured not 

 in every case by new and suggestive presentation 

 of the materials to hand. Often enough, the 

 author has depended rather on weight of added 

 fact to illumine the intelligence of his readers. The 

 consequence is that while he possesses a clear style 

 that states scientific fact and argument without 

 prolixity or ambiguity, his book makes at the best 

 hard reading , its perusal being calculated to inspire 

 respect rather than enthusiasm for the subject. 

 Its obvious merits, however, outweigh all its 

 defects. 



Textual errors and other discrepancies are 

 present in not too great abundance. While no 

 serious blunder of this kind has caught the eye of 

 the reviewer, he would venture to protest against 

 the retention of the Egyptian-like perspective of 

 fig. 60. 



BRITISH BOTAXISTS. 

 Makers of British Botany: a Collection of Bio- 

 graphies by Living Botanists. Edited by F. W. 

 Oliver. Pp. iv -t- 332 T xxvi plates. (Cambridge 

 University Press, 1913.) Price gs. net. 



THE decision to publish the course of lectures 

 on British botanists given at London Uni- 

 versity in 191 1 was a very wise one, and Prof. 

 F. W. Oliver deserves our sincere thanks for the 

 trouble he has taken to produce so excellent a 

 result. The volume is full of interest, and con- 

 tains much concerning the lives and activities 

 of some ef the lesser-known British botanists that 

 might otherwise have passed into oblivion. 



Modern botanists, after the perusal of the 

 several biographies, may well reflect not only when 

 they consider the remarkable energy of their dis- 

 tinguished predecessors, but also when they 

 realise, as they now can, how great were the 

 advances made in botanical science, despite in- 

 numerable difficulties, by the pioneers of the 

 subject. 



The ten lectures of the course deal with the 

 work of the following botanists : (1) Morrison 

 (1620-83) an d Ray (1627-1705); (2) Grew (1641- 

 x 7i2); (3) Hales (1677-1761); (4) Brown (1773- 

 1858); (5) Sir W. Hooker (1785-1865); (6) Hens- 

 low (1796-1861); (7) W. Griffith (1810-45); (8) 

 Henfrey (1819-59); (9) Harvey (181 1-66); and 

 (10) Williamson (1816-95). 



Since these biographies did not, of course, in- 

 NO. 2272, VOL. Ql] 



elude all the distinguished botanists to whose 

 labours we owe the foundation of botanical science 

 in this country, it was wisely decided to supple- 

 ment the lectures by the inclusion of chapters 

 dealing with certain other botanists equally deserv- 

 ing of recognition as founders of the science. Even 

 with the inclusion of these worthies, namely, Hill 

 (1716-75), Lindlev (1799-1865), Berkeley (1803- 

 89), Gilbert (1817-1901), Marshall Ward (1854- 

 1905), the Edinburgh professors (1670-1887), and 

 especially J. H. Balfour and Sir Joseph Hooker 

 (1817-1911), the list is incomplete. Bentham, for 

 instance, is an unfortunate omission, and it is to 

 be hoped that it may not be long before a second 

 edition is called for and that Prof. Oliver may carry 

 out his intention of adding accounts of several other 

 British botanists who should never be excluded 

 from a historical account of botany in Britain. 



Where the general level is so high, it is perhaps 

 invidious to single out individual essays for special 

 commendation, but of the lectures, Hales by Sir 

 Francis Darwin and the account of Robert Brown 

 by Prof. Farmer are of particular interest. The 

 value of the volume is also very much enhanced 

 by Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer's masterly account 

 of Marshall Ward and by Prof. Bower's life of Sir 

 Joseph Hooker, a task from its magnitude perhaps 

 harder than that which fell to any other contributor 

 to the volume. 



One of the chief reasons why we are grateful 

 for this book is not so much that it tells us once 

 more about men whose names are as household 

 words, but rather because the value of the work 

 done by those whose contributions to the science 

 have been known only to the few can now be seen 

 in its true light by all. Until the appearance of 

 the book, how few of the younger botanists could 

 have given a coherent account of the work of 

 William Griffith, Henfrey, or Harvey? 



Griffith, as Prof. Lang points out, was a great 

 botanist : 



"It is true that he failed to break through the 

 limitations of his time and period, that he left no 

 new and more correct general views to modify 

 the science. But this is true of all his contem- 

 poraries; indeed, it is true of most botanists. To 

 recreate the department of a science in which a 

 man labours requires a combination of ability and 

 fortunate chances that is given to few." 



It is especially fitting to remember Griffith at 

 the present day since he was a pioneer in the line 

 of botanical work now known as ecology. Not 

 only did he collect plants, but he frequently 

 adopted the "plan of roughly manning each day's 

 route and indicating the plants and associations 

 of plants along the line of march." Ecological 

 methods, it should be remembered, were also 

 prominent in the teaching of John Hutton Balfour. 



