68 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. L. No. 1281 



One of the great significant facts for tte 

 future to consider, and which will appeal to 

 our patriotic spirit of attainment, is that the 

 history of the great war must be written in 

 terms of scientific discoveries and research. 

 What part is the history of science to take in 

 this achievement? What is the spirit of phi- 

 losophy to bring forth from such a study? 

 One fact is certain of emphasis, that the prog- 

 ress of science, national and international, 

 must be cooperative. Not alone has the war 

 taught us this, but the spirit of idealism, 

 which we have fought to maintain, must be 

 carried on. 



All these facts are mentioned to show the 

 spirit of the times, and now that this country 

 has attained such a position of worth, the 

 American Association for the Advancement 

 of Science can give no greater encouragement 

 to this idealism, to the philosophy of science, 

 to the final meaning of education and culture, 

 then by placing its approval upon the adoption 

 of Section " K " to be known as the History 

 of Science Section. Frederick E. Brasch 



John Crerae Library, 

 Chicago 



the needs of paleobotany 



What paleobotany most needs is men. The 

 dearth of men conversant with fossil plants, 

 not merely in America, but taking the world 

 over, is to be deplored. iN'athorst, the eminent 

 Swedish paleobotanist, in a recent letter em- 

 phasizes this fact. Thin as it has been at all 

 times, the paleobotanic rank and file has been 

 all but decimated. The war seems to have 

 hastened the end for three of the older men 

 who adorned everything they touched — Zeiller 

 and Lignier, of France, and Solms, of Stras- 

 burg. The career of the young and promising 

 Fernan Pelourde closed on the field of battle; 

 and as heroic was the end for Euth Holden in 

 Eussia. We lament too E. A. Newell-Arber, 

 the course of whose life was also shortened by 

 the war. To ofiset these great losses there have 

 been no accessions abroad and the only 

 younger worker who has definitely joined the 

 paleobotanic ranks in this country during the 

 past dozen years is Harvey Bassler. The 



American contributors in paleobotany, older 

 and younger, are Hollick, Knowlton, David 

 White, Jeffrey, Berry, and Sellards. All first 

 came into notice twenty or more years ago, 

 and both Sellards and White seem wholly lost 

 to other interests, or to survey or executive 

 duties. 



Let any one think for himself what such a 

 slender margin means to a great subject of 

 growing and world-wide interest. What a 

 lack there is of timely papers, of exploration 

 in the field in a hundred horizons and a thou- 

 sand important localities in both North and 

 South America. Consider too, where the 

 workers are so few and the field continent 

 wide, what a lack of healthy criticism there 

 must be. Without vigorous and knowing criti- 

 cism small facts pass for great ones, and great 

 principles and facts of far reaching import, 

 whole categories of evidence, are left for long 

 years unnoted. This is not the way to do the 

 world's meed of work. Furthermore', progress 

 in paleobotany peculiarly depends on the ex- 

 amination as far as practicable of the world's 

 forests and fossils. Restriction is, more than 

 in any other subject, fatal because of the ex- 

 ceedingly variable types of fossil plant con- 

 servation. 



It is not within the present limits to go into 

 any detailed account of the greater climatic 

 and geologic problems, the solution of which 

 awaits the work yet to come in the broader 

 field of paleobotany. A suggestive account of 

 the relations of paleobotany to botany was 

 given by Professor Coulter in an address a 

 few years ago.^ 



It is, however, well to recall several of the 

 limits to the investigations of past floras as 

 they stand to-day. Firstly, there can be no 

 question that the indices of phytological form 

 are many and valuable when properly com- 

 bined. Tet not merely the paleobotanists, but 

 the botanists have left the fine " nature 

 prints " (better than the leaves themselves for 

 comparison) just where the work of Ettings- 

 hausen closed about sixty years ago. And this, 

 notwithstanding the fact that for years those 



1 Reprinted in American Naturalist, 1912, pp. 

 215-225. 



