K.—BOTANY. 203 
teaching, with the result that the approach to biology was, in the main, 
through medicine ; botany was, indeed, of the faculty of medicine rather 
than of science—Strasburger’s text-book still retains a vestige of the 
herbal in its coloured pictures of medicinal plants. Robert Brown, 
William Griffith, Williamson, Henfrey, Hutton Balfour, Dickson, Trimen, 
Sir Joseph Hooker, and these are not the complete tale, were all qualified 
medical men; Harvey also was a Doctor of Medicine, but his degree 
was honoris causa to enable him to qualify for the Chair of Botany in 
Dublin University, to which, incidentally, he was not appointed. Other 
reasons lie in the facts that the period was one of exploration, expansion 
and development of the Empire, which meant an inflow of great numbers 
of plants for identification, and the labourers were few. 
Finally, the systematists did not entirely favour the new movement and, 
if not actively antagonistic, they looked upon it with amused tolerance. 
Even Sir Joseph Hooker, who thus wrote to Asa Gray in 1886,‘I.. . have 
thrown aside all idea of making headway with—any desire to keep up 
with even—heads of Chemico-botany, and Micro-phytology. I may con- 
tent myself with a casual grin at young men calling themselves botanists, 
who know nothing of plants, but the ‘innards’ of a score or so. The 
pendulum will swing round, or rather back, one day.’ The prophecy 
was partly right ; the pendulum swung round, not back; taxonomy was 
eventually enlivened by the work of young men who knew the ‘ innards’ 
of plants. But there is another side; Sir Joseph was consulted by 
Huxley regarding the teaching of biology, with the result that he modified 
his course at the Royal College of Science. Indeed, it would appear that 
with the passing of time, Sir Joseph Hooker appreciated the significance 
of the New Botany as is indicated in a letter to Francis Darwin : 
“I am glad you are going to teach the Medicos a little practical 
Botany. It is lamentable to find that all this botanical teaching of 
the greatest Universities in England and Scotland does not turn out 
a single man who can turn his botanical knowledge to any use 
whatever to his fellow creatures. Where should we be if Medicine, 
Law, or any other pursuit were taught after that fashion.’ 
This was written in 1894! 
Before leaving this aspect of our subject, I wish to correct any mis- 
apprehension which my words may have given origin: the pursuit of 
systematic botany is not only important, it is absolutely essential; the 
exact identification of a plant, sometimes to a variety or to a form, is the 
first step not only in morphological but also in some physiological investiga- 
_ tions. I have, for instance, in mind two physiological papers containing 
the results of much skilful work: the first is valueless because the plant 
was wrongly determined, and the worth of the second is much impaired 
owing to the absence of a specific identification. 
Tue Turrp Periop: THE RENAISSANCE OF Botany IN BRITAIN. 
The botanical renaissance in this country began in about 1875 and it 
was here in this foundation, the Royal College of Science, that it happened. 
The credit for it is due to Thiselton-Dyer who, as Huxley’s demonstrator, 
instituted and conducted the first laboratory classes in botany. Harry 
Marshall Ward was the first product. 
