6o8 



NATURE 



[January 30, 1913 



ago, when you could count on the lingers of one hand 

 the American colleges that had chah-s of botany. And 

 here I use the term chair advisedly, for they were 

 literally chairs and not departments, much less labora- 

 tories. And everywhere else in the colleges of the 

 country the chairs of botany were represented by what 

 Holmes so aptly called "settees," from the number 

 of subjects taught therefrom. The botany dispensed 

 from these chairs was the delightful study of the 

 external morphology of the higher plants, especial 

 emphasis being laid upon the structure of flowers and 

 fruits. 



And with this external morphology there was always 

 associated the classification of the higher plants, in 

 its simpler form the pleasurable pastime of identifying 

 the plants of the neighbourhood, and in its more ad- 

 vanced form represented by the work of Torrey and 

 Gray, and Vasey and Engelmann. We should judge 

 systematic botany of that day by the work of these 

 masters, and not by the diversions of its amateurs ; 

 and you will agree with me that, so judged, the 

 systematic botany of that period will not fall short of 

 any standard we have set up in these later days. 



The botany of that day was not without its 

 laborious investigations and its tangible results. That 

 was the day of the founding of many small botanical 

 gardens, and small local herbaria, some of which, 

 having served their purpose, disappeared long since, 

 while others have grown into the great and flourishing 

 institutions of to-day. 



And what of the botany of to-day? The personnel 

 of botany has greatly increased with the great in- 

 crease in the territory it now includes. This personnel, 

 it must be said, is still quite heterogeneous. Some of 

 us are largelv self-taught, so far as the major part of 

 the subject is concerned. We brought to our work 

 the results of the meagre teaching of the old-time 

 college class-rooms, and year by year we have en- 

 larged the borders of our own departments as we have 

 added to our own knowledge of the subject by means 

 of our laboratories and libraries. Thus we have built 

 all kinds of superstructures upon the foundations 

 supplied by our teachers. As a consequence the 

 science is yet largely unorganised and lacks consistency 

 in plan and purpose. 



This difference of opinion as to what constitutes 

 botany results in the absence of united effort. In its 

 simplest aspect it takes the familiar form of uncer- 

 tainty as to the content and value of the work done 

 by the student elsewhere when he transfers himself 

 from one college to another. As a matter of fact, 

 there is yet no agreement as to what is a standard 

 first-year's course in college botany. What teacher 

 lias not been sorely puzzled to know to what courses 

 to admit men who came from another college with 

 credits in botany ! Ignorance is no valid excuse for 

 the scientific man, and in science everything is worth 

 while. It is to our shame as botanists that we 

 acknowledge our inability hitherto to frame a standard 

 first-year course in college botany. When the science 

 is definitely formulated in the minds of botanists the 

 present disagreement w-ilj no longer exist. Surely we 

 now " see as through a glass darkly." 



Again, it may be remarked that we are to-day placing 

 great emohasis upon the applications of botany to 

 some of the great human activities, esDeciallv to agri- 

 culture. Witness the acfricultural exneriment stations 

 with their botanists of all kinds, from those who 

 study weeds and poisonous plants, to the physiologists, 

 pathologists, ecologists, and plant-breeders. And as 

 we look over the work they do wc are filled with 

 admiration and pride that they have individually done 

 so well. But it is not the cumulative work of an 

 army of science; it is rather the disconnected, im- 



NO. 225;, VOL. qo] 



related work of so many individuals. They are doing 

 scientific work in an unscientific way. Botanical 

 science which should have guided and directed these 

 laudable applications has not kept pace with them, 

 and we have the spectacle of these economic botanists, 

 physiologists, pathologists, plant-breeders, and others 

 working apart from the botanists proper, and some- 

 times even disclaiming any allegiance to the parent 

 science. Nothing but confusion and disaster can 

 result from such a condition. 



Contrary to what is sometimes affirmed, botanists 

 are still studying the flora of the country. In some 

 quarters there has been expressed the fear that field 

 botany has disappeared from the schools and colleges, 

 but this is far from true. While it no longer claims 

 the larger part of the student's attention, it is still an 

 essential part of the training of every botanist, and it is 

 probably true that in some cases there is even more 

 field work required to-day of young botanists than its 

 importance demands. Certainly in one kind of field 

 work I should like to see some of the energy and 

 ability now given to the discovery of means for 

 splitting old species turned towards the solution of 

 problems pertaining to growth and development and 

 reproduction. But the careful field study of what 

 plants grow here and there, and why they do so, is 

 greatly to be commended. The sociology of plants, 

 or, as we call it, ecology, has given in the last few 

 years a new reason, as well as a new direction to 

 field botany. 



The systematic botany of to-day continues to con- 

 cern itself more with the distinction of species than 

 with their origin, and this has brought to this depart- 

 ment of the science an increased narrowness which 

 has greatly injured its usefulness. On the other hand, 

 plant-breeding, which should be the experimental 

 phase of systematic botany, has had no connection 

 with it. And, strangely, systematic botany, which 

 should welcome plant-breeding as an ally in its quest 

 as to the meaning and origin of species, has been 

 scarcely at all interested. 



Let us turn now to the future of botanical science, 

 and endeavour to trace its more profitable course of 

 development during the next one or two decades. 

 What are seemingly to be the demands of modern 

 society upon this science? What are to be some of 

 the next steps in its evolution ? For whatever wc 

 may say in regard to the independence of science we 

 cannot escape the fact that it must serve its "day 

 and generation." No science can hope for support or 

 recognition that does not respond to the demands of 

 its age. 



Mv first inquiry may well concern itself with the 

 content of botanical science in the immediate future. 

 As we become better acquainted with it and recognise 

 more clearly its relations to the activities of the com- 

 munity we shall be able to define its proper content 

 with more accuracy. And let no man attempt to 

 belittle the importance of such an undertaking. I am 

 well aware of the impossibility of absolutely delimit- 

 ing botany from every other science, and especially 

 of doing so with reference to many of its applications, 

 and I am fully aware of the fact that the limits of 

 any science are subject to chanp-e with the progress 

 of human knowledge. Now and then there must be 

 a "rectification of the frontier" in respect to the 

 boundaries of a science. So without doubt we shall 

 have to add to or subtract from the area now allotted 

 to botany. 



It still is true that the field of botany may be con- 

 sidered in three parts — structure, physiology, and 

 taxonomy. Beginning with such strvictures as are 

 obvious to our unaided eyes, we have carried our 

 studies to the minute structure o* the tissues, and the 



