SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LI. No. 1305 



stead of cataloguing tliem as of equal value, 

 we must learn to distinguisli those that are 

 relatively fixed from those that are variables. 



In the same way, much of the older work in 

 anatomy must be regarded as records of de- 

 tails whose relative values were unknown. 

 Even the structures involved in vascular 

 anatomy are not static, but many a phylo- 

 genetic connection has been formulated on the 

 conception of the absolute rigidity of such 

 structures in their minutest detail. This con- 

 ception has made it possible, of course, to 

 develop as many static opinions as there are 

 variables in structure. 



Perhaps the greatest mass of details has 

 been accumulated by the cytologists, in con- 

 nection with their examination of the machin- 

 ery of nuclear division and nuclear fusion. 

 In no other field has the conception of the 

 rigidity of the structures involved become 

 more fixed, even to the minutest variation in 

 form and position. Of course we all realize 

 that any field of investigation must be opened 

 up by recording all the facts obtained; but we 

 must realize that this is only the preliminary 

 stage. The time has come when even the 

 recorded facts of cytology are being estimated 

 on the basis of relative values ; that is, the in- 

 evitable things are being differentiated from 

 the variables. 



The same situation is developing in the field 

 of genetics. We all recall the original rigid- 

 ity of the so-called laws of inheritance. It 

 was natural to begin the cultivation of this 

 field with the conception that the program of 

 heredity is immutable, and that definite struc- 

 tures are inevitable, no matter what the con- 

 ditions may be. There was probably more 

 justification for this conception in this field, 

 on the basis of the early investigations, 

 than in any other, but experience has begun 

 to enlarge the perspective wonderfully. The 

 rapidly accumulating facts are becoming so 

 various that consistent explanations require a 

 high degree of mental agility. More funda- 

 mental, however, is the recognition of the 

 fact that the problem of heredity involves not 

 only germinal constitution, which gives such 

 rigidity as there is, but also the numerous 

 factors of environment. In other words, such 



problems have become synthetic in the high- 

 est degree, making possible results that are 

 anything but static. 



In considering these illustrations of the 

 tendency to recognize that facts are not aU 

 pigeon-holed and of equal value, it is be- 

 coming more and more obvious that our botan- 

 ical problems are in general the application of 

 physics and chemistry to plants; that laws, 

 when we really discover them, are by definition 

 static, but that their operation results in any- 

 thing but static structures. In other words, 

 structure must respond to law, but the partic- 

 ular law that is gripping the situation may be 

 one of many. 



With such evolutionary tendencies in mind, 

 what is the forecast for botanical research ? I 

 wish to call attention to three important 

 features that seem certain to characterize it. 

 1. It will be necessary for the investigator 

 who wishes to have a share in the progress 

 of the science, rather than merely to continue 

 the card catalogue assembling of random data, 

 to have a broader botanical training than has 

 seemed necessary heretofore. Our danger has 

 been that the cultivation of a special tech- 

 nique, which of course is necessary, is apt to 

 limit the horizon to the boundary of that tech- 

 nique. In some cases the result to the in- 

 vestigator has been more serious than limiting 

 his horizon; it has led him to discredit other 

 methods of attack as of little importance. In 

 case this attitude is associated with the train- 

 ing of students, it is continued and multiplied 

 by pedigree culture. The product of certain 

 laboratories is recognized as of this type, and 

 it is out of line with the evident direction of 

 progress. 



This demand of the future does not mean 

 that one must specialize less than formerly. 

 It is obvious that with the increasing in- 

 tricacy of problems, and the inevitable devel- 

 opment of technique, we must specialize more 

 than ever. What the new demand means is 

 not to specialize less,_ but to see to it that 

 every specialty has developed about it a botan- 

 ical perspective. In other words, instead of 

 an investigator digging himself into a pit, he 

 must do his work on a mountain top. This 

 secures some understanding and appreciation 



