Maech 10, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



337 



cravings that are characteristic of the stu- 

 dents of science. The mental satisfaction of 

 the scientist who loves his work comes not 

 alone from achievement, but from the actual 

 doing. 



There is the search for truth, the dis- 

 covery of facts, the arrangement of the 

 facts to represent relationships, the peer- 

 ing behind nature as she is to determine 

 how she came to be wliat she is, the blending 

 of all into a harmonious whole, the feeling 

 that we are solving one of the fundamental 

 problems of the universe. Our imagination 

 bids us soar aloft in the realms of specula- 

 tion, but our progress in these delightful 

 journeys is ever limited by the chains of 

 facts binding us to earth. We are victims 

 of the inexorable law of compensation. We 

 must pay the price for successful flights in 

 this realm of speculation where we dream 

 our dreams and build our theories. This 

 price is the drudgery of slowly accumu- 

 lating facts. We must work, work, work. 

 We must examine thousands of specimens, 

 both living and preserved, in herbarium, 

 garden and field, just as the comparative 

 morphologist must examine thousands of 

 sections, staining, cutting, mounting. We 

 must measure and weigh evidence, per- 

 sistently, patiently, accurately. It is thus 

 that we lengthen the chains binding us to 

 earth and thereby soar higher and higher. 

 Occasionally one of us is so exhilarated with 

 the joy of soaring that he severs the chains 

 of facts and rises unrestricted, but, alas, soon 

 disappears from view. Some of us are 

 so busy with our facts that we never have 

 time for soaring. Only a few have that 

 happy combination of industry and imagi- 

 nation that allows them to rise to great 

 heights and yet remain within our view. 

 These few have that rare ability to select 

 related facts, to distinguish the essential 

 from the non-essential, to separate the sig- 

 nificant from the insignificant. 



The laboratory of the descriptive tax- 

 onomist is three fold, the field, the her- 

 barium and the garden. The facts con- 

 cerning the plants that he studies can most 

 satisfactorily be observed from living speci- 

 mens in their native habitat, that is in the 

 field. Apart from the practical impossi- 

 bility of observing in the field all the 

 plants that the worker may wish to study, 

 there is the difficulty of comparing those 

 that grow in different localities. This diffi- 

 culty is in part overcome by bringing to- 

 gether in a herbarium preserved speci- 

 mens. The disadvantage of studying her- 

 barium specimens is that in the larger in- 

 dividuals only a part can be represented 

 and that many characteristics of the living 

 plant can not be shown. By far the most 

 satisfactory method of stud3dng plants 

 from widely separated localities is to bring 

 them together in a botanic garden where 

 they may be preserved alive. It is almost 

 hopeless to attempt the study from her- 

 barium specimens alone of such groups as 

 cactuses, palms, agaves, and bamboos. I 

 can not let this occasion pass without em- 

 phasizing to you the importance to taxon- 

 omy of having a national botanic garden. 

 Under the supervision of the federal gov- 

 ernment such a garden is likely to receive 

 more ample support than one depending 

 upon state, municipal, or private aid, and 

 because of its national character is likely to 

 extend its influence over a wider area. 



There is another phase of descriptive 

 taxonomy — an eminently practical one — 

 which merits attention, namely, certain re- 

 lations between this branch and all other 

 branches of botany, relations which involve 

 the use of the botanical names of plants. 

 Taxonomy is the classification of organ- 

 isms, but definite progress requires the use 

 of names for the organisms classified. 

 Names are older than systems of classifica- 



