736 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION K. 



this question. The most recent report of a 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 sufi'er if unrepresented in the Museum collections at 

 South Kensino-ton, and that the dried collections and herbarium staff are a neces- 

 sary adjunct to the maintenance 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 display ; 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, stimuLite, 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 well 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 aa distinguished from routine duties, and a 

 more complete specialisation. 



We now approach another aspect of the question — the newer lines that are 

 opening up in systematic studies. 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, tbey are beset wi'h their 

 own special difficulties. As Dr. Scott — who has always urged their importance — 

 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 iatroduction of such 

 characters into the ordinary work of the herbarium may be premature ; certainly 

 it must be conducted with the 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 realisation. 



It is perfectly true that in the case of a recent proposal to found a new natural 

 order of fiowering 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 always 

 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 Hence, just when we ought to 

 bestir ourselves lest we incur the reproach of being unprogressive, we live from 

 hand to mouth, and seem content with the shadow of a past ascendancy. It is 

 the opportunity that is lacking to systematists to develop and utilise their heritage. 



I am sanguine enough to believe that much might be done by a redistribution 

 of duties, especially if this were accompanied by the fusion of the great herbaria, to 

 which reference has already been made. But the greatest hope, I think, must lie 

 in the possibility of some form of alliance or understrinding between the autho- 

 rities 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 



' D. H. Scott, Presidential Address, Section K, Brit. Assoc. (1896). 



