688 REPORT— 1888. 



aware, and that liis ' Fragment on Government ' contains clear and just views on the 

 meaning of a natural arrangement which reflect directly the influence of Linnseus and 

 Jussieu. Mill himself possessed a competent knowledge of systematic hotany, and 

 therefore was well able to judge of its intellectual value. For my part, I do not 

 doubt that precisely the same qualifications of mmd which made Jeremy Bentham 

 a great jurist, enabled his nephew to attain the eminence he reached as a botanist. 

 As a mere matter of mental gymnastic, taxonomic science will hold its own with 

 any pursuit. And, of course, what I say of botany is no less true of other branches 

 of natural history. Mr. Darwin devoted eight or nine years to the systematic study 

 of the Cirripedia. ' No one,' he himself tells us, ' has a right to examine the question 

 of species who has not minutely described many.' And Mr. Hu.xley has pointed 

 out, in the admirable memoir of Mr. Darwin which he has prepared for the Royal 

 Societv, that, the acquirement of an intimate and practical knowledge of the process 

 of species-making . . . ' was ' of no less importance to the author of the " Origin of 

 Species " than was the bearing of the Cirripede work upon the principles of a natural 

 classification ' 



At present the outlook for systematic botany is somewhat di.scouraging. France, 

 Germany, and Austria no longer possess anything like a school in the subject, 

 though they still supply able and distinguished workers. That these are, how- 

 ever, few, may be judged from the fact that it is difficult to fill the place of the 

 lamented Eichler in the direction of the Botanic Garden and Herbarium at Berlin. 

 Outside our o-5\ni country, Switzerland is the most important seat of general syste- 

 matic study to which three generations of De Candolles have devoted themselves. 

 The most active centres of work at the moment are, however, to be found in our 

 own country, in the United States, and in Russia. And the reason is, in each case, 

 no doubt the same. The enormous area of the earth's surface over which each 

 country holds sway brings to them a vast amount of material which peremptorily 

 •demands discussion. 



No country, however, affords such admirable facilities for work in systematic 

 botany as are now to be found in London. The Linnean Society possesses the 

 Herbarium of Linnreus ; the Botanical Department of the British JMuseum is rich 

 in the collections of the older botanists ; while at Kew we have a constantly 

 increasing assemblage of material, either the results of travel and expeditions or 

 the contributions of correspondents in diflerent parts of the empire. A very large 

 proportion of this has been worked up. But I am painfully impressed with the 

 fact that the total of our available workers bears but a small proportion to the 

 labour ready to their hands. 



This is the more a matter of concern, because for the few official posts which 

 are open to botanists at home or abroad a practical knowledge of systematic botany 

 is really indispensable. For suitable candidates for these one naturally looks to 

 the imiversities. And so far, I am sorry to say, in great measure one looks in vain. 

 It would be, no doubt, a great impulse to what is undoubtedly an important branch 

 of national scientific work if fellowships could occasionally be given to men who 

 showed some aptitude for it. But these should not be mere prizes for under- 

 graduate study, but should exact some guarantee that during the tenvu-e of the 

 fellowship the holder would seriously devote himself to some definite piece of 

 work. At present, undoubtedly, the younger generation of botanists show a dis- 

 position to turn aside to those fields in which more brilliant and more immediate 

 results can be attained. Their neglect of systematic botany brings to some extent 

 its own Nemesis. A first principle of systematic botany is that a name should 

 denote a definite and ascertainable species of plant. But in physiological literature 

 you will find that the importance of this is often overlooked. Names are 

 employed which are either not to be found in the books, or they are altogether 

 misapplied. But if proper precautions are taken to ascertain the accurate 

 botanical name of a plant, no botanist throughout the civilised world is at a loss to 

 identify it. 



But precision in nomenclature is only the necessary apparatus of the subject. 

 The data of systematic botany, when properly discussed, lend themselves to very 

 important generalisations. Perhaps those which are yielded by the study of 



