Januaby 7, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



any was probably given in the closing years 

 of the eighteenth century, by John Maclean, 

 who was professor of chemistry and natural 

 history. From 1824 to 1829 Luther Halsey 

 was professor of natural philosophy, chem- 

 istry and natural history, and from 1830 

 to 1854 a similar position was held by John 

 Torrey. In 1874 George Maeloskie was ap- 

 pointed professor of natural history, and 

 still occupies the chair of biology as pro- 

 fessor emeritus. It was not until a few 

 years ago, however, that one man. Professor 

 Rankin, gave all his time to botany, and 

 only very recently that ShuU was appointed 

 as the first professor of botany and genet- 

 ics. 



So far as shown by the actual dates given 

 me, Columbia was the first institution where 

 botany was taught, since Daniel Treadwell 

 was professor of natural history at Kings 

 College from 1757 to 1760. The first pro- 

 fessor of botany was Richard Sharpe Kis- 

 sam, 1792, who was succeeded by Samuel L. 

 Mitehill, 1793 to 1795. After that botany 

 was apparently included under natural his- 

 tory until the time of Dr. Torrey, who was 

 professor of chemistry and botany, and ap- 

 parently the real founder of the science at 

 that institution. 



According to both Farlow and Harshber- 

 ger, the University of Pennsylvania can 

 claim the first real botanical professorship 

 in this country, as Dr. Adam Kuhn was 

 made professor of botany and materia med- 

 ica in 1768. Later "William Bartram was 

 appointed to the same chair, but did not ac- 

 cept. 



Recent Development in Colleges. — Prac- 

 tically all this early instruction was limited 

 to a systematic and a morphological study 

 of the phanerogams. Apparently it had 

 little or no relation to agriculture, its aim 

 being purely scientific and educational, not 

 practical. Modern botanical instruction, so 

 far as a single institution can illustrate it. 



began at Harvard in the early 70 's, when, 

 under Gray, opportunity was provided for 

 Goodale 's work in vegetable physiology and 

 Farlow 's in eryptogamic botany. 



About this time, however, the establish- 

 ment of state universities and agricultural 

 colleges formed a potent agency in the 

 development of modern botanical educa- 

 tion ; for just as surely as these have been 

 prime factors in the progress of modern 

 agriculture, so have they been in the growth 

 of modern botany, at least in its economic 

 aspects. Among the names associated with 

 this pioneer period are those of Farlow, 

 whose early work at the Bussey Institution 

 was of an agricultural nature, Beal, at the 

 Michigan Agricultural College, Burrill, at 

 the University of Illinois, Bessey, at the 

 Iowa Agricultural College, and later at 

 Nebraska University, Tracy, at the Uni- 

 versity of Missouri, Havey, at Maine, and 

 a few others. 



To-day there are approximately three 

 hundred teachers and investigators carry- 

 ing on this work in our agricultural col- 

 leges and stations; while there are perhaps 

 an equal number engaged in botanical work 

 in the universities outside of agricultural 

 colleges, and in other non-agricultural in- 

 stitutions. These, with the four hundred 

 in the Bureau of Plant Industry at Wash- 

 ington, make about one thousand persons 

 in this country engaged in advanced bot- 

 anical work as a profession. 



In order to gain some idea of the number 

 of genei'al and special students in botany, 

 and the courses offered in the agricultural 

 colleges as compared with those in non- 

 agricultural institutions (including those 

 where botanical instruction in the univer- 

 sity is separate from that in the agricul- 

 tural college), the writer recently sent out 

 a short questionnaire to an equal number of 

 agricultural and non-agricultural institu- 

 tions, and received replies from 41 of the 



