434 



NA TURE 



[August 23, 1906 



From this rough sketch we see that the prevailing school 

 of botany has arisen very independently of that which 

 preceded it. The discontinuity between them you might 

 almost call abrupt. All through the middle parts of the 

 last century we were so busy amassing and classifying 

 plants that the great questions of botanical policy were 

 left to solve themselves. Great herbaria became of the 

 order of things : they received Government recognition, and 

 they continue their work apart. Those who built up these 

 great collections neglected to convince the schools of the 

 importance of training a generation of botanists that would 

 use them. The schools were free, and they have gone 

 their own way, and that way does not lie in the direction 

 of the systematic botany of the herbarium. So long as 

 this tendency prevails the herbaria must languish. When 

 I say languish, I do not mean that they will suffer from 

 inefficient administration — their efficiency probably has 

 never been greater than at the present time. But the effort 

 involved in their construction and upkeep is altogether 

 disproportionate to any service to which they are put. 

 Work, of course, comes out of them ; it is no question of 

 the devotion or ability of individuals. It is the general 

 position, the isolation of systematic botany, to which atten- 

 tion should be directed with a view to its alleviation. 



If things are left to take their course there is the fear 

 of atrophy through disuse. The operation of the ordinary 

 economic laws will no doubt serve to fill vacancies on the 

 staff as they arise, but the best men will be reluctant to 

 enter. Of course the pendulum may begin to swing the 

 other way, though no indication of such a change is yet 

 apparent. 



Let us now attempt an analysis of some of the causes 

 which have led to this condition of affairs. 



In the first place, our two national herbaria (Kew and 

 the British Museum) stand apart from the ordinary 

 botanical current. They are administered, the one as a 

 portion of the Kew establishment under the Board of Agri- 

 culture, the other as a department of the British Museum 

 under a Board of Trustees. Neither has any connection, 

 direct or indirect, with any university organisation. The 

 Keeperj and Assistants as such have no educational func- 

 tions allotted them ; I mean positions in these herbaria 

 carry no teaching duties with them. There are no facilities 

 for teaching; there are no students. No machinery exists 

 for training recruits or for interesting anybody in the ideals 

 and methods of systematic botany. A recent event illus- 

 trates my meaning better than any words. My friend Dr. 

 Rendle accepted the Keepership of the Botanical Depart- 

 ment at the British Museum a few months ago. Previously, 

 as Assistant, he had held a lectureship at a London college. 

 One of the first consequences of his new appointment was 

 his retirement from the teaching post. Now that was bad. 

 Under the conditions which one would like to see there 

 would have been no resignation. On the contrary, the 

 Keepership should have entitled Dr. Rendle to promotion 

 to a full professorship. I do not mean a great post, with 

 elementary classes, organisation, and so on, but one in 

 which he would be occupied with his own branch, giving 

 a course for advanced students, let us say, once a year 

 during the summer months. Nor is that all. Such are 

 the vagaries of our university organisation in London that 

 we run some risk of losing Dr. Rendle from the Board of 

 Studies in Botany. Automatically he ceases to be a 

 " recognised teacher," and unless some loophole can be 

 found the connection will be severed. 



Next we come to the question of routine duties. These 

 are heavy in herbaria, and must include a great many 

 that could be satisfactorily discharged by handy attendants. 

 As in the case of those who work in laboratories, half a 

 man's time should be at his own disposal for original 

 investigations. It is important, for a variety of reasons, 

 that the members of the staff should take a leading part 

 in .advancing systematic botany. 



Then there is another way in which a great economy 

 could be effected in effort, time, and money. This is the 

 transfer of the collections and staff of the Botanical De- 

 partment from the Museum to Kew. This is a very old 

 proposal, first seriously entertained some fifty years ago 

 after the death of Robert Brown. There must Idc endless 

 files of reports and Blue Books in official pigeon-holes 

 dealing with this question. The most recent report of a j 



NO. I 92 I, VOL. 74] 



departmental committee is known to all interested in the 

 matter. From the character of the evidence tendered it is 

 not surprising that no action has been taken. I am at a 

 loss to find any adequate reason for the continuance of two 

 separate herbaria. It has been urged, no doubt, that 

 botany would suffer if unrepresented in the Museum collec- 

 tions at South Kensington, and that the dried collections 

 and herbarium staff are a necessary adjunct to the mainten- 

 ance of a botanical museum. But there is little force in 

 the contention. The specimens that go to make a 

 herbarium are not proper subject-matter for museum dis- 

 play ; nor is there anything about herbarium work which 

 intrinsically fits the staff to engage in the arrangement 

 of museum cases. The function of a botanical museum is 

 to interest, stimulate, and attract. It should convey an 

 idea of the current state of the science, and particularly of 

 the problems that are to the front, in so far as it is possible 

 to illustrate them. It requires a curator with imagination 

 and ideas, as weU as an all-round knowledge of his subject. 

 He must also be an artist. Logically there is no reason 

 why a museum should be part of the same organisation 

 as systematic collections. There is, indeed, a danger of 

 making the museum too exhaustive. I am speaking, of 

 course, of a teaching museum, which belongs really to the 

 province of a university, or university extension if you like. 

 Systematic collections kept exposed under glass are luxuries. 

 All the world agrees that the museum side is admirably 

 done at South Kensington, and most people attribute this 

 success to the systematic element which is paramount 

 behind the scenes. But, as we have seen, this is a fallacy, 

 and the " museum argument " for keeping the herbarium 

 at South Kensington may be ignored. 



By the fusion of the herbaria at Kew one would look 

 for increased economy and efficiency, more time for original 

 work as distinguished from routine duties, and a more 

 complete specialisation. 



We now approach another aspect of the question. Much 

 has been said on the value of anatomical characters in 

 classification, and it is pretty generally conceded that they 

 ought to be taken into consideration, though, like other 

 characters, they are beset with their own special difficul- 

 ties. As Dr. Scott — who has always urged their import- 

 ance — says : ' " Our knowledge of the comparative anatomy 

 of plants, from this point of view, is still very backward, 

 and it is quite possible that the introduction of such 

 characters into the ordinary work of the herbarium may 

 be premature ; certainly it must be conducted with thr' 

 greatest judgment and caution. We have not yet got our 

 data, but every encouragement should be given to the 

 collection of such data, so that our classification in the 

 future may rest on the broad foundation of a comparison 

 of the entire structure of plants." This passage was 

 written ten years ago and we are still awaiting its realisa- 

 tion. 



It is perfectly true that in the case of a' recent proposa' 

 to found a new natural order of flowering plants anatomical 

 characters find due consideration ; still, on the whole, we 

 are content to rely on the traditional methods that have 

 been transmitted from Linnaeus and the old taxonomists, 

 So much material is alwavs passing under the hands of 

 our systematists that they cannot devote the time for the 

 elaboration of a fresh method. In particular there are 

 the new things which require docketing and provisional 

 description. Circumstances, as ever, place obstacles in our 

 way and tend to make us unprogressive. 



Now it seems to be of the first importance that reform 

 should come from within ; that these problems, which are 

 systematists' problems, should be solved by taxonomic 

 specialists. 



I am sanguine enough to believe that much might be 

 done by a redistribution of duties, especially if this vi^v 

 accompanied by the fusion of the great herbaria, to which 

 reference has alreadv been made. But the greatest hope. 

 I think, must lie in the possibility of some form of alliance 

 or understanding between the authorities responsible for the 

 administration of the herbaria on the one hand and the 

 local university on the other. For directly you give the 

 Keepers or Assistants in the former a status in the latter, 

 you place at the disposal of the systematists a considerable 



D. H. Scott, Presidential .address, Section K, Bri 



(i3q6). 



