270 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LIII. No. 1369 



mental attitudes if the influences that have 

 been so potent in the past are to be made 

 nugatory. 



It so happens that during the past decade 

 or so there have been many discourses pub- 

 lished, mostly in Science, on the general theme 

 "What is the matter with botany?" The 

 diverse viewpoints of experienced men have 

 been set forth in detail, so that it is relatively 

 easy to grasp their attitudes toward the prob- 

 lem. So far as I know these essays have 

 called forth little iu the way of comment from 

 plant culturists either as expressions of sym- 

 pathy or as opinions that might help in the 

 diagnosis of the case. ISTow the whole matter 

 has again come to the front, even to the extent 

 of definite ideas to organize a broad American 

 Plant Society that vdll embrace in its mem- 

 bership all concerned with plants or their cul- 

 ture. It would seem therefore that agrono- 

 mists and other plant culturists can scarcely 

 refrain longer from presenting their view- 

 points as to the nature of the centrifugal 

 forces that have kept botany and plant cul- 

 ture apart. Inasmuch as many botanists have 

 attempted to define what agriculture is and 

 what it is not, is high time that there be a 

 rejoiader, lest silence on the part of agrono- 

 mists and horticulturists be construed as 

 assent to the statements that have been made. 

 A survey of the many articles by botanists 

 in relation to the existing conditions shows 

 that one or another of them has recognized 

 several of the tendencies that have been more 

 or less potent. Not unnaturally some of 

 these tendencies or factors will be evaluated 

 by the plant culturist quite differently from 

 the botanist. The factors that are adduced 

 are in part historical or ti-aditional ; in part 

 t::e concomitant of intellectual isolation; and 

 to some extent the result of conventional or 

 even cramped ideas concerning the definition 

 of the word science and of such phrases as 

 pure science and applied science. Historic- 

 ally the development of plant culture has 

 been almost without contact with botany or 

 the study of plants as plants. The beginnings 

 of plant culture go far back ia the history of 

 man, long before there were historians to 



record the facts or scientists to ponder over 

 their significance. Witness the extraordinary 

 development of maize, beans, tobacco, and 

 other plants by the American Indian, so great 

 indeed that the wild originals are no longer 

 known or at least recognized as such; the 

 marvelous series of varieties or sorghums 

 originated by the African negroes; the end- 

 less forms of rice brought into existence by 

 the Indo-Malayan peoples; the high develop- 

 ment of wheat and other small grains in pre- 

 historic times. Primitive man was indeed a 

 wizard, agriculturally considered. Not only 

 did he discover each and every important food 

 plant, as well as all narcotics and stimulants, 

 but most of them he cultivated and by one 

 means or another developed numerous vari- 

 eties. From prehistoric man we inherit not 

 alone a wealth of crop varieties but more or 

 less definite knowledge of cultural methods. 

 From this foundation modern plant culture 

 has been developed by farmers, gardeners, 

 agronomists and horticulturists by an almost 

 infinite amount of " cut and ti-y." Practically 

 all of the progress in tillage, manuring, drain- 

 age, irrigation, breeding, pruning, has thus 

 been obtained. 



It may be that underlying the historical 

 relations or lack of relations between botany 

 and plant culture is what one botanist refers 

 to as " intellectual isolation," " provincial- 

 ism," and as a " feeling of superiority." Per- 

 haps the wit's definition of a professor of 

 botany carries the same import as does the 

 phrase " intellectual isolation." " A professor 

 of botany is a man who teaches what he knows 

 about plants to young men and women who 

 expect to instruct students who desire to be- 

 come professors of botany to train others to 

 teach." This definition suggests what the 

 doctors call a vicious circle rather than the 

 society ideal called a "select circle." 



Inasmuch as a prominent botanist used all 

 of the quoted expressions, it may be per- 

 missible to divulge an open secret among 

 agronomists and horticulturists, namely, that 

 the last one especially, the "feeling of supe- 

 riority," has long been recognized as an im- 

 portant element in preventing more cordial 



