326 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 611. 



given courses of lectures in connection with, 

 the university schemes of advanced study. 

 From all I hear, the experiment may be 

 regarded as distinctly encouraging. 



Before leaving this subject it may be ap- 

 propriate to recall that the English edition 

 of Solereder's great work on systematic 

 plant-anatomy is rapidly approaching com- 

 pletion, and should be available very 

 shortly. Its appearance can not fail once 

 more to arouse discussion as to the impor- 

 tance of anatomical characters. I hope the 

 result produced may reward the devotion 

 and labor with which Mr. L. A. Boodle and 

 Dr. Fritsch have carried out their task. 



In another and even more fundamental 

 branch of systematic work the future seems 

 brimful of promise. We are beginning to 

 recognize that a vast number of the species 

 of the systematist have no correspondence 

 with the real units of nature, but are to be 

 regarded rather as subjective groups or 

 plexuses composed of closely similar units 

 which possess a wide range of overlapping 

 variability. That such might be the case 

 was apparent to Linnaeus, but the proof 

 depends on the application of precise meth- 

 ods of analysis. 



In> the year 1870 our great taxonomist 

 Bentham happened to meet Nageli at 

 Munich, and, as we find recorded in Mr. 

 Day don Jackson's interesting life, "had 

 half an hour's conversation with him on 

 his views that in systematic botany it is 

 better to spend years in studying thorough- 

 ly two or three species, and thus really 

 to contribute essentially to the science, than 

 to review generally floras and groups of 

 species. ' ' Bentham does not appear to have 

 been convinced, for his comment runs : ' He 

 is otherwise, evidently, a man of great 

 ability and zeal, and a constant and hard 

 worker.' At the time of this interview 

 Bentham was seventy years old, Nageli be- 

 ing seventeen years his junior. The views 



of the latter are now bearing fruit, as we 

 see in the important results already ob- 

 tained by de Vries and others, who are fol- 

 lowing the methods of experimental culti- 

 vation with so much success. 



The supposed slowness of change has 

 been a difficulty to many. This was one 

 of the 'lions' left by Darwin in the way, 

 and it has driven back many a 'Timorous' 

 and 'Mistrust.' Now, as we are gradually 

 perceiving, it is only a chained lion after 

 all; a thing to avoid and pass by. The 

 detection of the origin of species and varie- 

 ties by sudden mutation opens out new vis- 

 tas to the systematist, and along these he 

 will pursue his way. It will take many 

 years of arduous work, this reinvestigation 

 of the species question. The collections of 

 our herbaria form the provisional sorting- 

 out from which we must start afresh. In 

 the long run it may be that our present 

 collections will prove obsolete, but that will 

 not deter us. The scrap-heap is the sign 

 and measure of all progress. 



The garden thus becomes an instrument 

 of supreme importance in conjunction with 

 the herbarium, and that is another reason 

 for the transfer of South Kensington to 

 Kew. The resources of the latter could 

 then be directed more fully than ever to 

 the advancement of scientific botany, and 

 the gardens would be revealed in a new 

 light. For the operations and results of 

 experimental inquiries would form a new 

 feature, very acceptable to the specialist 

 and public alike. And, as I am on the 

 subject, it may not be out of place to re- 

 mark that we all look forward eagerly to 

 the time when the multifarious activities of 

 Kew will permit the development of other 

 features of which traces are already dis- 

 cernible. The arrangement of the living 

 collections is at present based largely 

 on horticultural convenience, geographic 

 origin and systematic affinity, happily sub- 



