SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVII. No. 940 



we have annexed much contiguous and 

 even some remote territory in a most im- 

 perialistic fashion. It may be comforting 

 to some people to know that during all 

 this time there have been those who have 

 constantly and consistently lifted up their 

 voices in protest against this contravention 

 of the practise of the fathers, and the 

 breaking down and removal of the ancient 

 landmarks. In all these years there have 

 been botanical anti-expansionists, but like 

 their brothers in the national field they 

 have been overwhelmed, and the tide of 

 expansion has swept on unchecked. 



Consider for a few minutes the botany 

 of forty years ago, when you could count 

 on the fingers of one hand the American 

 colleges that had chairs of botany. And 

 here I use the term chair advisedly, for 

 they were literally chairs and not depart- 

 ments, much less laboratories. And every- 

 where else in the colleges of the country the 

 chairs of botany were represented by what 

 Holmes so aptly called "settees" from the 

 number of subjects taught therefrom. The 

 botany dispensed from these chairs was the 

 delightful study of the external morphol- 

 ogy of the higher plants, especial emphasis 

 being laid upon the structure of flowers 

 and fruits. And it may truly be said here 

 that often the teaching was done very well, 

 far better than many a botanist to-day is 

 wont to imagine. I am pretty sure that in 

 general the teaching was as successfully 

 done then as it is now. There were some 

 poor teachers then as there are now, and 

 there were some inspiring teachers then 

 who touched their pupils with the sacred 

 fire, as there are now some who have had 

 a divine call to teach and inspire and help. 



And with this external morphology there 

 was always associated the classification of 

 the higher plants, in its simpler form the 

 pleasurable pastime of identifying the 

 plants of the neighborhood, and in its 

 more advanced form represented by the 



work of Torrey and Gray and Vasey and 

 Engelmann. And we should judge the 

 systematic botany of that day by the work 

 of these masters and not by the diversions 

 of its amateurs; and you will agree with 

 me that so judged the systematic botany 

 of that period will not fall short of any 

 standard we have set up in these later days. 



The botany of that day was not without 

 its laborious investigations and its tangible 

 results. Every new area was a great out- 

 of-doors laboratory to be diligently studied 

 from border to border. That was the day 

 of the founding of many small botanical 

 gardens, and small local herbaria, some of 

 which having served their purpose disap- 

 peared long since, while others have grown 

 into the great and flourishing institutions 

 of to-day. 



This much as to the botany of the imme- 

 diate past; the phase of the science in 

 which the older living botanists were 

 trained. 



PRESENT-DAY BOTANY 



And what of the botany of to-day ? Let 

 us consider for a little the present condi- 

 tion of the science. 



It is Unorganized. — The personnel of 

 botany has greatly increased with the great 

 increase in the territory it now includes. 

 This personnel, it must be said, is still 

 quite heterogeneous. Some of us are 

 largely self-taught, so far as the major 

 part of the subject is concerned. We 

 brought to our work the results of the 

 meager teaching of the old-time college 

 class-rooms, and year by year we have en- 

 larged the borders of our own departments 

 as we have added to our own knowledge 

 of the subject by means of our laboratories 

 and libraries. Thus we have built all 

 kinds of superstructures upon the founda- 

 tions supplied by our teachers. As a con- 

 sequence the science is yet largely unor- 

 ganized and lacks consistency in plan and 



