January 30, 19 13] 



NATURE 



bog 



cells which compose them. We are able now to peer 

 into the protoplasmic recesses of the living cell, and 

 while we cannot say that we have seen life, we have 

 seen where life is, and what it does. Cytology, his- 

 tology, and morphology in our modern laboratories 

 have greatly changed our conception of the structure 

 of the plant. It is no longer made up of forms to be 

 compared because of their general similarity of out- 

 line, or of position in the plant body. The plant as 

 a whole is a community of variously differentiated 

 living units, just as is each of its organs. It is a 

 complex community in which there is a measure of 

 individual independence of the units, along with much 

 of mutual dependence. 



This leads me easily to that portion of the field of 

 botany that has to do with the activities of plants and 

 their organs — physiology — the scope of which has been 

 so greatly extended in these later years. Here such 

 inquiries as those pertaining to nutrition, growth, 

 sensibility, reproduction, are of primary importance. 

 The introduction of the experimental method of in- 

 quiry has made this a favourite department of the 

 science. Who does not enjoy catching a plant, tying 

 it up in a corner, and compelling it to do something, 

 while we watch for the result? This kind of study 

 appeals especially to those who are looking for demon- 

 strations, and for this reason plant physiology has 

 been increasingly popular. Some botanists, indeed, 

 have gone so far as to insist upon giving first place 

 to physiologv. Yet it is well for us to remember that 

 the plant is first of all a structure the complexity of 

 which may w-ell challenge the most acute minds. 

 We find it far easier to record the responses of plants 

 to our planned stimuli than to unravel a structural 

 complex, and so no doubt we shall continue to enter- 

 tain ourselves and our students with what are too 

 often futile experiments. 



In this part of the botanical field are pathology, 

 which grew up from our observation that organs 

 may not respond normally ; ecology, which developed 

 from the observation that plants tend to live in com- 

 munities ; and phytogeography, having to do with 

 the means for, and the results of, distribution. 



Taxonomy, or, as we used to call it, classification, 

 occupying the third division of the field of botany, 

 long received the almost exclusive attention of botan- 

 ists. And even to-dav it is the pretty general opinion 

 of our non-botanical friends that we are constantly 

 employed in collecting specimens, and in some intri- 

 cate and mysterious w'ay determining their classifica- 

 tion and affixing to them their proper Latin names. 

 .-\nd it must be admitted that every botanist does a 

 good deal of just such work. 



When the doctrine of evolution came into botany it 

 brought with it the idea of descent, and thereafter 

 taxonomy included phylogeny. To-day the taxonomist 

 is no loneer content to stop with a knowledge of the 

 slructural differences between plants; he must know 

 how this structure arose from that ; he must know 

 which is the primitive structure and which the derived. 

 Phvlogenv has so far entered into taxonomy that it 

 has given new meaning to the work of the systematic 

 botanist, and it is bringing into this department of 

 the science something of the philosophical aspoct 

 which was nearly wanting heretofore. That this 

 must be the direction of the development of the 

 taxonomy of the future is without question, and we 

 may look confidently for a marked expansion and 

 enlargement of the phyletic idea in botanical 

 taxonomy. 



And here I may pause for a moment to advert to 



a part of taxonomy with which some biologists have 



little patience, without good reason, as it seems to 



me. I refer to the matter of taxonomic nomenclature, 



NO. 2257, VOL. 90] 



which has vexed the souls of many botanists, 

 especially during the past one or two decades. How- 

 ever, since every science must have its nomenclature 

 it is childish for us to wish to ignore it in botany. 



This contempt for nomenclatural questions is 

 symptomatic of a much-to-be-deprecated state of mind, 

 quite too common among scientific men, especially 

 those who have engaged in special lines of work. I 

 believe in specialisation in botany, but specialisation 

 should not degenerate into narrow bigotry. 



Quite easily this leads to a consideration of the 

 personality of the botanist of the immediate future. 

 What manner of man wdll he be? What will be his 

 training? In other words, what will the future de- 

 mand of the botanist? For it does not need argument 

 to show that the men engaged in botanical w-ork in 

 the future will be developed and fashioned in response 

 to the demands of the community. 



If I interpret aright the movement of modern society 

 as a whole, it is going to result in a demand for two 

 things that by many are thought to be opposite and 

 antagonistic-^specialisation and breadth. The first it 

 will demand of its experts, the men who are set aside to 

 solve particular problems for the community ._ In niost 

 cases these will be economic problems of immediate 

 importance to the community, but there is no reason 

 why in the most intelligent communities they should 

 not' be scientific problem's, of more remote importance. 

 No doubt there will be a demand for many such 

 experts, each of whose tasks will be restricted to but 

 one problem. The only requirement laid upon these 

 men will be that they can do the work to which 

 they have been assigned, and the more restricted the 

 problem the narrow^er may be the preparation of the 

 expert. 



But while the community is certain to mcrease its 

 demand for botanical experts, we must not overlook 

 th" fact that with this demand will come another 

 much more imperative for men of far greater breadth 

 and depth of knowledge, who, in addition to training 

 the botanical experts "of various kinds for the com- 

 munity, are able to bring the science as a w^hole 

 before the youth of the land as a part of the scien- 

 tific culture which modern society requires. These 

 must be men of the broadest training; men whose 

 sympathies are not bounded by the one science which 

 they know, much less by one phase of botanical 

 science; men who, know'ing well their one science, 

 know also much of the related sciences ; men ivho, in 

 addition to a knowledge of science, bring to theii" 

 students and their community the results of that 

 broader view w^hich relates botany to the life and 

 activities of the community. Such men bear the 

 name of botanists worthily, and justify the contention 

 of scientific men that science may contribute more 

 than material good to the community. These are 

 Lord Bacon's "lamps" and "interpreters of nature." 



Turning now to the institutions of learning — the 

 colleges 'and universities— where botany holds a place 

 as one of the sciences, let us a.sk w^hat we may look 

 for in regard to its development. In every proper 

 college the department of botany exists primarily for 

 its teaching function, and this is true also for nearly 

 every university. .And while w-e may hope to make 

 every such department a centre of investigation also, 

 it is' true now, and it must always be true, that in 

 our educational institutions the teaching of the science 

 must be the primary object of every one of its scien- 

 tific departments. So the future will call for much 

 more of definitencss as to the content and sequence 

 of the science, as well as the manner of its presenta- 

 tion ; its pedagogics, if you please. 



The college and university departments of botany 

 in the near future will arrive at a clearer notion as 



