June 27, 1907] 



NATURE 



199 



I.ONDOX BOTAXIC GARDE.XSA 



'X'HIS little work comprises in book form a series 

 ■^ of articles contributed to the American journal 

 of Pharmacy by Mr. P. E. F. Perredes in 1905 and 

 1906. Written by a pharmaceutical chemist to a 

 pharmaceutical journal, these papers naturally devote 

 attention primarily to the relationship of the London 

 botanic gardens to the art of pharmacy. In tracing 

 the origin of botanic gardens to the private gardens 

 of the herbalists of the sixteenth and seventeenth 

 centuries, the author shows that the cultivation of 

 medicinal and officinal plants was the fundamental 

 object kept steadily in view. But recognising that 

 the modern botanic garden, while not departing from 

 this original function, has developed other and equally 

 important features, he has not confined himself ex- 



claim to rank as a botanical establishment, but in 

 view of the close association with it of such men as 

 Lindley, Bentham, and Fortune, and of the services 

 rendered to botanical science by the collectors of the 

 society, such as Don and Douglas, the author rightly 

 feels that in a comprehensive review the Royal Horti- 

 cultural Society cannot be ignored. In dealing with 

 the three London botanic gardens proper, Mr. 

 Peredes judiciously leaves the reader to form his own 

 idea of their relative importance. Each is dealt with 

 separately, from three points of view — historical, func- 

 tional, and administrative. 



From the historical standpoint it may almost be 

 said that the history of these gardens is the history 

 of systematic botany in England. In dealing with 

 their functions, as already remarked, there has been 

 no attempt at comparison. But the conclusion one 



Chelsea Phy 



clusively to the pharmaceutical aspect of the London 

 botanic gardens, but has given in a concise but com- 

 prehensive manner a review of the work accom- 

 plished by them in the domain of pure botany and 

 in the application of the science to technical affairs. 

 The subject has been treated throughout with a 

 breadth of view, an insight and a sense of proportion 

 which have too often been lacking in sketches of this 

 nature, and the absence of which may be held ac- 

 countable in a great measure for the vague ideas pre- 

 valent as to the functions of a botanic garden. 



The gardens dealt with are the Chelsea Physic 

 Garden, the Roval Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Royal 

 Botanic Society's Garden, and the garden of the 

 Roval Horticultural Society. The last makes no 



'2 of the Publicalionsof the Wellcome 

 Hill, E.C. Pp. 99, with 31 plaies. 



arrives at is that, in inception at least, these respec- 

 tive botanic gardens were complementary rather than 

 antagonistic or competitive. While founded on a 

 common basis, they differed widely in scope, and 

 though perhaps not dovetailing perfectly, there was 

 no material overlapping. Thus the deed conveying 

 the Chelsea Physic Garden to the Society of Apothe- 

 caries in 1722 stated that the conveyance was made 

 " that their apprentices and others might better dis- 

 tinguish good and useful plants from those that bore 

 resemblance to them, and yet were hurtful, and other 

 the like good purposes." 



The Royal Botanic Society was established, in 

 1839, on a somewhat wider footing " for the promotion 

 of botany in all its branches, and its application to 

 medicine, arts and manufactures, and also for the 

 formation of extensive botanical and ornamental 



NO. 1965, VOL. 76J 



