March 25, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



271 



relations between conventional botanists and 

 plant culturists. In tbe recent articles that 

 I have referred to, several of tbe writers con- 

 trast such subjects as agronomy, horticulture, 

 forestry, with botany, manifestly implying 

 that the former are no part of botany. The 

 omission of the mention of any branch of 

 plant culture in other articles would also 

 justify the deduction that they are excluded 

 subjects. On the other hand a few botanical 

 writers point out that it is the great weakness 

 of conventional botany that it has held aloof 

 from the culture of plants as a proper field of 

 its activity; deplore the fact that botany has 

 been restricted mainly to impractical con- 

 siderations and that the practical uses of 

 plants have largely been segregated in other 

 fields of endeavor. Curiously enough, botany 

 has always displayed a more cordial attitude 

 toward pharmacy and forestry than it has 

 towards horticulture or agronomy. Perhaps 

 drugs and trees smack less of the farm than 

 do soils, manures, and crops. It may be re- 

 lated to that curious human tendency, espe- 

 cially of the city dweller, to expend wit on 

 the tiller of the soil; a peculiar mental trait 

 that has given a sinister or derogatory mean- 

 ing to such originally innocent terms as vil- 

 lain, heathen and pagan. 



Whatever the causes may have been, it has 

 come about that botanists get a very different 

 training from agronomists and horticulturists. 

 It is a trite saying that botanists know noth- 

 ing about plant culture and agronomists and 

 horticulturists little about botany. Individ- 

 uals fairly proficient in both are all too scarce. 

 We are thus perpetuating in our schools the 

 schisnl that exists between the two groups of 

 men who devote their energies to problems 

 concerning plants. It is comforting to be- 

 lieve that more and more of us are coming to 

 realize that this is truly deplorable. I can 

 well apipreciate a consuming interest in plants 

 solely on account of the wonderous diversity 

 of their forms: of the extremely interesting 

 phenomena in their growth and movements; 

 of their complex relations to each other and 

 to their physical environment; of the intrica- 

 cies of their cellular structures and functions ; 



but the practical world is more interested in 

 plants as sources of food, raiment and other 

 necessities. While it is perfectly true that 

 mankind can not live by bread alone, it is 

 equally true that if he does not provide for 

 bread he will very soon be freed from all other 

 cares and desires. 



This separation of botany from plant cul- 

 ture is, as already pointed out, tacitly ad- 

 mitted in numerous recent articles. It is 

 likewise evident enough in text-books. In 

 Pfeffer's " Physiology of Plants," for example, 

 whenever the subject-matter impinges on 

 plant culture, the student is referred to Mayer 

 or some other agricultural text. It is related 

 of a famous German botanist that when a 

 student asked the name of a particular culti- 

 vated plant, he replied : " How should I know ? 

 Ask the gardener." Perhaps some of the in- 

 excusable misidentifications of plants in recent 

 technical articles were due to asking the gar- 

 dener. Some exceptions to this narrow atti- 

 tude conspicuous on account of their rarity- 

 do indeed occur among botanists where men 

 were interested in the relation of their dis- 

 coveries to plant culture. I refer to such men 

 as Gaertner, Sachs, Miller, Don, as a few 

 examples. 



Again, there are some current ideas con- 

 cerning the nature of science and its con- 

 ventional divisions, pure science and applied 

 science, that need to be dispelled and if pos- 

 sible corrected. 



Some of my botanical friends would at once 

 protest at the title of my address, and sug- 

 gest that it would better be " Plant science 

 and plant culture," arguing in this wise: 

 plant science or botany is the whole knowl- 

 edge of plants that has been accumulated and 

 is systematized and formulated in respect to 

 all the general principles that have been dis- 

 covered; whereas plant culture is purely an 

 art, to a large extent the result of the appli- 

 cation of botanical principles. As printed 

 evidence I quote from one of the botanical 

 writers : 



Agriculture, for example, is not a science, but 

 an art, and whatever of science it employs is ap- 



