January 3, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



wanting heretofore. That this must be 

 the direction of the development of the 

 taxonomy of the future is without question, 

 and we may loolc confidently for a marked 

 expansion and enlargement of the phyletic 

 idea in botanical taxonomy. 



And here I may pause for a moment to 

 advert to a part of taxonomy with which 

 some biologists have little patience, with- 

 out good reason, as it seems to me. I refer 

 to the matter of taxonomic nomenclature 

 which has vexed the souls of many botan- 

 ists, especially during the past one or two 

 decades. However, since every science 

 must have its nomenclature it is childish 

 for us to wish to ignore it in botany. It is 

 a part of the science, and we must give it 

 consideration if we are to do our full duty. 

 I have been surprised many times when 

 men have spoken disparagingly of the 

 whole matter of nomenclature, and of those 

 who are giving time and effort to its 

 stabilization. "While it may be granted 

 that not every botanist is in duty bound 

 to help to settle questions of nomenclature, 

 or even to take part in framing the general 

 rules of procedure, it is the duty of every 

 one to appreciate and encourage those who 

 are so engaged. It has sometimes seemed 

 to me as I have heard wholesale denun- 

 ciations of nomenclature and nomencla- 

 turists that instead of being botanists we 

 are only cytologists, morphologists, physi- 

 ologists, pathologists, ecologists. 



This contempt for nomenclatural ques- 

 tions is symptomatic of a much-to-be- 

 depreeated state of mind, quite too com- 

 mon among scientific men, especially those 

 who have engaged in special lines of work. 

 I believe in specialization in botany, but 

 specialization should not degenerate into 

 narrow bigotry. A wise man long ago 

 admonished his friends in words which I 

 am tempted to repeat here as most fitting : 



But now they are many members, but one body. 

 And the eye can not say to the hand ' ' I have no 

 need of thee " ; or again the head to the feet, 

 ' ' I have no need of you. ' ' Nay, much rather, 

 those members of the body which seem to be more 

 feeble are necessary; and those parts of the body, 

 which we think to be less honorable, upon these 

 we bestow more abundant honor, and our un- 

 comely parts have more abundant comeliness; 

 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God 

 tempered the body together, giving more abun- 

 dant honor to that part which lacked, that there 

 should be no schism in the body, but that the 

 members should have the same care one for 

 another. 



Wiser words of counsel for the workers 

 in different parts of the field of a science 

 were never written, and I beseech you, my 

 botanical brethren, to heed them, "that 

 there should be no schism in the body" of 

 botany. 



Personality of the Botanist. — Quite easily 

 the foregoing leads to a consideration of 

 the personality of the botanist of the im- 

 mediate future. What manner of man will 

 he be? What will be his training? In 

 other words, what will the future demand 

 of the botanist? For it does not need 

 argument to show that the men engaged in 

 botanical work in the future will be devel- 

 oped and fashioned in response to the 

 demands of the commvinity. 



If I interpret aright the movement of 

 modern society as a whole, it is going to 

 result in a demand for two things that 

 by many are thought to be opposite and 

 antagonistic — specialization and breadth. 

 The first it will demand of its experts, the 

 men who are set aside to solve particular 

 problems for the community. In most cases 

 these will be economic problems of imme- 

 diate importance to the community, but 

 there is no reason why in the most intelli- 

 gent communities they should not be scien- 

 tific problems, of more remote importance. 

 No doubt there will be a demand for many 

 such experts, each of whose tasks will be 



