598 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 619. 



quires 'alleviation,' and that atrophy is im- 

 minent, the professor proceeds to ' attempt an 

 analysis of some of the causes which have led 

 to this condition of aifairs.' Neither the 

 British Museum nor Kew " has any con- 

 nection, direct or indirect, with any uni- 

 versity organization; there are no facilities 

 for teaching; there are no students; no 

 machinery exists for training recruits or for 

 interesting anybody in the ideals and methods 

 of systematic botany." If by this Professor 

 Oliver means that herbaria are not teaching 

 bodies in the sense that a university is, he is 

 accurate enough; but when he proceeds to 

 argue as a consequence that there are no 

 means for interesting folk in systematic bot- 

 any, he evidently speaks in ignorance of what 

 can be and is being done. As regards the 

 national herbarium, of which we are in a posi- 

 tion to speak, it would not be difficult to find 

 systematists of European reputation who 

 would acknowledge with gratitude the help 

 they have received in acquiring a knowledge 

 of 'the ideals and methods of systematic bot- 

 any' ; and we have no doubt that similar testi- 

 mony could be given at Kew. To take one 

 example from each — ^Mrs. Gepp, who has a 

 world-wide reputation as an algologist, owes 

 her position to the ' ideals and methods ' ac- 

 quired as a student in the department of bot- 

 any; Mr. Hiern, whose monograph of ^ Ebe- 

 naceae (1873) was but the first of a long series 

 of contributions to systematic botany, first 

 became ' interested ' at Kew, and has since, at 

 both herbaria, availed himseK of the ' facil- 

 ities ' — for learning if not for teaching — 

 which they afford. 



Professor Oliver then goes on to suggest 

 " another way in which a great economy 

 could be effected in effort, time and money; 

 this is the transfer of the collections and staff 

 of the botanical department from the Museum 

 to Kew. This is a very old proposal, first 

 seriously entertained some fifty years ago 

 after the death of Robert Brown." It may be 

 remarked en passant that this ' old proposal ' 

 was first made in the course of Brown's own 

 evidence before the Royal Commission on the 

 British Museum in 1848, and rebutted by him 

 (Q. 3468-9). "There must," he continues. 



" be endless files of reports and blue books in 

 official pigeon-holes dealing with this ques- 

 tion." This, of course, is pure hypothesis. 

 " The most recent report of a departmental 

 committee is known to all interested in the 

 matter. From the character of the evidence 

 tendered it is not surprising that no action has 

 been taken." Professor Oliver must know 

 that the ' evidence ' was tendered by men of 

 qualifications at least equal to his own — ^men, 

 moreover, acquainted, as he manifestly is not, 

 with the work and functions of a herbarium; 

 and that if ' no action was taken ' it was be- 

 cause none seemed desirable. This, however, 

 does not prevent an ipse dixit which at any 

 rate shows that the professor will allow no 

 undue modesty to hinder the expression of his 

 opinion : ' I am at a loss to find any ade- 

 quate reason for the maintenance of two 

 separate herbaria.' We have no intention of 

 entering upon a discussion of the matter; 

 suffice it to say that those best acquainted 

 with both collections have long been of the 

 contrary opinion, and that that opinion is 

 strengthened as their knowledge increases. 

 We note that in contemplating the fusion. 

 Professor Oliver assumes that this would be 

 done by the transfer of the museum collec- 

 tions to Kew; but his acquaintance with the 

 report of the departmental committee to 

 which reference has been made will have 

 shown him that the reverse process has been 

 advocated, and in view of his hope for an 

 alliance of the herbarium officials with a 

 ' local university,' it would seem a more rea- 

 sonable plan. 



It is clear from the whole tenor of his re- 

 marks that Professor Oliver is unacquainted 

 with the functions or the value of public her- 

 baria, and it is only when we recognize this 

 that his position becomes intelligible. His 

 ignorance is the more remarkable considering 

 the eminent position as a systematic botanist 

 attained by his father when keeper of the Kew 

 Herbarium; but it is obvious when, for ex- 

 ample, he tells us that ' in the long run it may 

 be that our present collections will prove ob- 

 solete,' and adds significantly, 'the scrap-heap 

 is the sign and measure of all progress.' He 

 does not understand that a public herbarium 



