June 10, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



891 



published regarding each of the varieties 

 tested. Further investigations have 

 clearly revealed the very superficial na- 

 ture of most of these varietal studies. In 

 general, the collections consisted of such 

 varieties as could be gathered locally and 

 through seedsmen. In only a few eases 

 have specimens been preserved, so that it 

 is not possible now to verify or determine 

 the varieties grown, though in many eases 

 it is certain from the notes that the va- 

 riety published on was not true to name. 

 There has thus been placed on record a 

 mass of misinformation regarding many 

 varieties. In my opinion, at least fifty 

 per cent, of the varieties that have been 

 published upon are either untrue to name 

 or unidentifiable. I hope I may not seem 

 to be pessimistic in portraying the pres- 

 ent status of much of the published infor- 

 mation on crop varieties. It is the natu- 

 ral result of neglect by men of proper 

 training to do accurate work of a purely 

 botanical character. As an indirect re- 

 sult of this failure by botanists to apply 

 their trained skill to the problems of agri- 

 culture, especially as concerns knowledge 

 of crop varieties, there has arisen the idea 

 that training in systematic botany can 

 not be of particular assistance to agricul- 

 ture. Therefore, it has all but disap- 

 peared from college curricula at least in a 

 form to train students to know plants. 

 Few agronomists and horticulturists grad- 

 uating to-day from our agricultural col- 

 leges are well trained in botany— indeed 

 so far as I know no college is training 

 botanists to enter agricultural work, ex- 

 cepting along pathological lines. 



I do not feel that I should be justified 

 in thus painting so gloomy a picture of 

 botany in its relation to agriculture, if the 

 recent trend of things did not indicate 

 that better times were coming— indeed 

 are here. There was one field of work 



that both botanists and agriculturists en- 

 tered upon in the course of their investi- 

 gations that has brought them together, 

 namely, plant breeding. It is a happy 

 coincidence that at practically the same 

 time the interest of all biologists has been 

 stimulated to renewed interest in the prob- 

 lems of variation and heredity. The prac- 

 tical results already obtained by plant 

 breeders is an earnest of what may rea- 

 sonably be further expected. Incidentally 

 but inevitably, the work of the plant 

 breeder has stimulated interest in the 

 matter of existing crop varieties as well 

 as in the principles underlying variation 

 and heredity. Breeding is, after all, 

 largely the production of new varieties. 

 Thus far, breeders have used for the most 

 part locaUy established varieties as the 

 basis of the work. This is sound as far 

 as it goes, as the local varieties undoubt- 

 edly represent the best adapted of those 

 tried, the poorer sorts having been dis- 

 carded. It is safe to say, however, that 

 but a small per cent, of existent varieties 

 have been tried in most places— so that 

 there may easily exist varieties superior 

 at least in certain characteristics. A 

 realization of this has led to a clearer ap- 

 preciation of the value of a comprehen- 

 sive study of the whole botany of our 

 principal crop plants. This does not mean 

 merely a categorical list of existent va- 

 rieties—which it is evident can be indefi- 

 nitely increased by hybridizing— but a 

 sufficiently exhaustive study so that we 

 may thoroughly understand the character- 

 istics, both good and poor, that are avail- 

 able to the breeder. The task is by no 

 means an easy one. In the first place, the 

 number of varieties in all our crop plants 

 is far greater than has commonly been 

 realized. For example, there are prob- 

 ably about 2,000 varieties of wheat, 1,000 

 of beans, 5,000 of apples, 200 of sor- 



