340 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIX. No. 1267 



for American botany during this period of flux 

 rests upon tlie botanists themselves. 



That the tendency amongst botanists toward 

 ■dissociation is too strong to be disregarded is 

 shown by an examination of the recent botan- 

 ical programs of these winter meetings in com- 

 parison with those of a few years ago. For- 

 merly all ibotanists met with Section G of the 

 American Association for the Advancement 

 of Science, and with the Botanical Society of 

 America for the reading of papers on mis- 

 cellaneous botanical subjects. Now, the plant 

 pathologists, the geneticists and the ecologists 

 have independent societies; the physiologists 

 and systematists have separate sections of the 

 Botanical Society with independent programs ; 

 and still other groups of botanists are begin- 

 ning to request recognition and to urge that 

 special sessions be devoted to their subjects. 

 The grouping of papers according to subject 

 matter and the formation of special programs 

 are made necessary by the rapid increase in the 

 number of papers presented, and doubtless are 

 desirable in every way. The forniation of 

 different sections by the Botanical' Society of 

 America, and even the launching of independ- 

 ent societies by various groups of botanists, are 

 the natural results of rapidly mounting num- 

 bers and of increasing specialization. 



There is no question but that the evolution 

 of our winter programs indicates healthy 

 growth, yet we must recognize the lurking dan- 

 ger, for we see here one evidence of the cen- 

 trifugal tendency amongst botanists. Separate 

 programs denote and foster a concentration of 

 effort along special lines. They are one sign of 

 pur inclination to segregate into groups, the 

 special subjects in which we are interested 

 acting as the foci of attraction. This segrega- 

 tion, within proper limits, undoubtedly makes 

 for efficiency, but we must take care that it 

 does not lead to undue slackening of interest in 

 other botanical fields than our own, to loss of 

 perspective and to inability to grasp other 

 points of view. If this occurs we shall have 

 crossed the danger line, ultimate estrangement 

 amongst botanists becomes a mere matter of 

 time, and efficiency wiU give place to disunion 

 and narrowness. Botanical science could not 



then be compared with a healthy tree sur- 

 rounded by vigorous offspring in the shape of 

 subsciences; rather would it be likened to an 

 ancient trunk denuded of many of its most im- 

 portant branches which have struck root for 

 themselves and are now selfishly competing 

 with one another and with the impoverished 

 parent stem.- 



Our problem then is to preserve the unity of 

 American botany without losing the benefits of 

 specialization. It is the old problem of con- 

 trolling and directing the vital forces which 

 underlie growth and development that they 

 may make for efficiency and strength rather 

 than for disunion and weakness. 



I believe there is one factor more potent than 

 any other in promoting disunion amongst bot- 

 anists. That factor is not the fundamental 

 scientific importance of a given field of botany, 

 nor the speed of its development We have 

 seen the rise to importance of one subject after 

 another without witnessing their withdrawal 

 from the botanical hearthstone. It is not the 

 development of a peculiar and highly special- 

 ized technique, nor the concentration of inter- 

 est in a particular group of plants. . ISTeither is 

 it mere number of workers in a given field, nor 

 close affiliation with non-botanical subjects. 

 All these factors contribute to dissociation 

 within the ranks of botanists, but do not nec- 

 essarily lead to rupture of those ranks. Per- 

 haps not all combined are .so potent in this 

 respect as is economies. Whenever any branch 

 of botany becomes of especial economic im- 

 portance its centrifugal tendency is enormously 

 increased. The general public is then inter- 

 ested and becomes instrumental in determining 

 the course of development. There is a new 

 and greatly enlarged staff of workers, many of 

 whom have not received orthodox botanical 

 training. These workers in the new field of 

 applied botany lose the isolation of the pure 

 scientist, and come more closely in touch with 

 the problems of human life. New methods of 

 thought appear and new standards of value 

 arise. While the applied botanist is developing 

 the ideals of service to his fellow men, he often 

 over-emphasizes the importance of his own 

 field, loses his catholic interest in botany in 



