668 < REPORT— 1894. 



believe I give utterance to feelings every one of you would wish expressed in 

 paying this passing tribute to his memory from the chair of the Section of the 

 Association devoted to the subject of his life-work. 



I cannot open the business of the Section without referring to the fact that its 

 organisation appears to be variable, like the objects of its study. It has changed 

 its constitution more than any other Section of the Association, under influences 

 partly from within in the strength of its elements, partly from without in the local 

 circumstances of its meetings. At its origin it was the Section of Botany, Zoology, 

 Anatomy, and Physiology ; in the followmg year anatomy and physiology became 

 a new Section, E, onlj' after some years to merge again in the original one. Theii 

 a partition was tried — a physiology department and an anthropologj' department 

 were formed within Section D ; but the Montreal meeting saw anthropology as 

 Section H of the Association and physiolog}' again an integral portion of Section D. 

 This year, as you are aware, physiology — I must be careful to say animal physi- 

 ology — has again become a detinite Section — I. Whether or no the habit thus 

 acquired through the environment of Oxford will be so permanent as to be trans- 

 mitted and appear at future meetings of the Association is a problem upon 

 which I refrain from speculating ; my reason for mentioning this matter at all is 

 to point out that, as in previous devolutions of subjects from Section D, animal 

 physiology is the only physiology which is concerned. It was part of the original 

 proposal that plant physiology should form a portion of the province of Section I. 

 To this the botanical members of Section D are unable to assent. AVe all readily 

 admit that the development within recent years of our knowledge of plant-life is 

 entirely in the direction of bringing to light fundamental similarities between the 

 vital processes in plants and in animals. To no one do we owe more in this sphere 

 of investigation than to two of the distinguished botanists from Germany whom 

 we are glad to welcome at this meeting — Professors Pfeffer and Strasburger. 

 And we fully reciprocate the desire for mutual comment and criticism implied in 

 the suggestion of combination. But allowing these as grounds for the conjoint 

 treatment of the physiology of plants and animals in one section, what we botanists 

 feel is that we are a compact body of workers in a science the boundaries of which 

 it is at present not difficult to define, and that to divorce physiology from mor- 

 phology and other branches of botany would tend to loosen our cohesion, would be 

 to go against the current of our progress, and would take all the vitality from our 

 discussions. To have papers on plant physiology dealt with in Section I, whilst 

 those on other botanical subjects were dealt with in Section D, would be not merely 

 an extremely inconvenient arrangement, from causes inherent in the subjects 

 themselves, but would strike at that fraternity and spirit of camaraderie amongst 

 those treading the same path of science, the promotion of which is the chief, if 

 not the only, function the British Association now fulfils. At the outset, there- 

 fore, of our meetings, 1 wish to make it known that papers and discussions on all 

 botanical subjects will take place in Section D. 



And now I pass to the special topic upon which I am to address you. In 

 selecting it I have followed the lead of those of my predecessors in this chair who 

 have used the opportunity to discuss a practical subject. Forestry, about which I 

 purpose to speak, is a branch of applied science to which, in this country, but little 

 attention has been given by any class of the community. By scientific men it has 

 been practically ignored. Yet it is a division of Rural Economy which ought to 

 be the basis of a large national industry. 



There are no intrinsic circumstances in the country to prevent our growing 

 trees as a profitable crop for timber as well as our neighbours. On the contrary, 

 Great Britain is specially well adapted for tree-growing. We have woodlands of 

 fine trees, grown after traditional rule-of-thumb methods, abundant in many dis- 

 tricts. The beauty of an English landscape lies in its trees and its pastures. 

 Nowhere in the world, probably, are to be found finer specimens of tree-growth. 

 As arboriculturists we are unrivalled. But the growing of trees for effect and in 

 plantations is a very different matter from their cultivation on scientific principles, 

 for the purpose of yielding profitable crops. This is sylviculture. The guiding 

 lines of the two methods of culture are by no means the same — nay, they may be 



