8 



DEPART3IEXTAL COJIMITTEE OX BOTANICAL WORK : 



F.R.S. 



1 Nov. 1900. 



Mr. G. R. M. called research, the Tvork is generally carried on under 

 Murray, those conditions, is it not? — \es. 



82. You said also that a good deal of the time of lie 

 ofScials of the British iMuseum was taken up by help 

 that was given to botanists who came to the Museum for 

 the purpose of research ; do you think it would be a 

 serious loss to botany if that assistance was withdrawn ? 

 — A most serious loss. 



83. Then you said, if I heard you correctly, that 

 British plants were only in the British herbarium — did 

 you mean British specimens ? — ^British specimens only, 

 not British species. 



84. As regards comparison, it is very important, is it 

 not, in comparing plants, or animals either, that you 

 should have specimens near to one another in order to 

 make the comparison, without having to go a consider- 

 able distance from one place to another ? — Most important. 



85. Then you expressed the opinion that fossil plants 

 were not so much used as they were foimerly in the 

 study of geology ; is not that rather, perhaps, in most 

 strata the animal remains are so much more numerous 

 and so much better preserved ? — Yes. 



86. But there is no falling off of the interest of geolo- 

 gists in fossil plants, when they can be obtained, is there ? 

 — I think not. I think this is more or less an accidental 

 circumstance. In recent years there have been fewer 

 workers at this particular group, and in another few 

 years they might be more numerous than ever. We find 

 in all parts of the Museum — it is not confined to my de- 

 partment — that certain studies become more or less 

 fashionable for definite periods, and then there is a run 

 in another direction. Probably that accounts for this to 

 some extent. Then there is the suggestion which had 

 escaped me entirely, that animal remains are so very 

 much more useful in this particular work of stratigraphi- 

 cal geology. 



87. May I take it from you that, where plant remains 

 are preserved as well and as numerously, they would be 

 as carefully studied by the geological enquirer ? — Un- 

 doubtedly they would. I might cite as an instance the 

 recent study Mr. Seward has made of the flora of the 

 Wealden, which has been published in two volumes by 

 the Trustees of the Museiun. In the carrying 

 out of the work in connection with that flora of the 

 Wealden Mr. Seward has constantly laid us under contri- 

 bution for expert advice in the botanical department. 

 That is an exact illustration which' I should like to append 

 to my answer. 



88. I should like, if I can, to form some idea of what 

 saving would be effected by the amalgamation of the two 

 collections, assuming that the same amount of botanical 

 research was to be carried on, and the same 

 number of specimens obtained and arranged, and 

 so on, to see if possible what the saving would 

 be by their being in one collection instead of 

 in two. I see in your answer the furniture, 

 fittings, etc., are put at £350. I suppose, with 

 anything like the same number of species to be preserved, 

 you would not be able out of that to save more than £100 

 or something of that sort ? — Might I answer the question 

 generally first, and then come to any particular item ? 

 I have looTied at the question as a whole, and from the 

 point of view of pure economy, dissociating it entirely 

 from my own opinion as to the scientific desirability of 

 the step. Looking at it only from the point of view of 

 economy, it appears to me that there would be first an 

 enormous initial cost in building a proper building for the 

 accommodation of these two herbaria, a very large cost 



•indeed, because the building would have to be constructed 

 verv carefully, and would have to be fire-proof. It 

 would have "to be carefully watched and policed, and 

 there would be a large initial cost for furniture and 

 fittings in addition. I believe it would lead to no re- 

 duction whatever of the staff or salaries. 



89. Can you give us any idea what the cost of the fur- 

 niture and fittings has been for the British Museum col- 

 lection of pJants 1 Because that would give us some idea 

 of the expense 1 — ^I am afraid I do not remember. I can 

 get the initiail cost when we moved to South Keni^ington, 

 which Was f^ very large one. It varies annually consider- 



':ibly, but it is steadily diminishing. For example, in 

 the next estimates I shall need very little in the way of 

 furniture and fittings, because my gallery is almost as 

 f-ill as it will hold of these things. But if the whole 

 thing were to he moved it would need an enormous cost 

 f r furniture and fittings, both to accommodate our col- 

 lection and the Keiw one. I am confinmg myself now to 



the initial cost of such amalgamation. More herbarium 

 cabinets and exhibition cabinets would be needed, in 

 addition to the first cost of the building, and would amount 

 to a very large sum. 



90. Practically, I suppose, it would be very difficult to 

 utilise the existing cases 1 — There is this very great diffi- 

 culty, that the Kew sheets and cabinets are smaller than, 

 ours. Their specimens would go into our cabinets, but 

 ours coudd not conceivably go into theirs ; so that we 

 should need a new set. 



91. I suppose in ea,ch case the furniture is fitted to 

 the peculiarities of the building, and probably would not 

 suit another building? — The herbarium cabinets would 

 suit another building quite well, and could be removed, 

 but new cabinets of the cahbre of ours would have to be 

 made in large numbers, because both our speci- 

 mens and the Kew specimens would have to be 

 fitted in the same cabinet. There would be the 

 cost of new cabinets to the extent of the present 

 cabinets in the Kew herbarium. With regard to 

 working expenses, the largest sum is salaries. If 

 these herbaria were to he incorporated together, and 

 botany was still to proceed, we should need our present 

 staff and additional assistance to carry out the more 

 mechanical part of the work of incorporation, if it were 

 desired to do it in a comparativdly small num'ber of years, 

 and avoid unutterable confusion. That would be another 

 <<ource of expense. Ultimately I do not think any de- 

 finite economy would come about, because the largest 

 itepa, salaries, would, as I say, remain about the level 

 it is now. 



92. TMien they were amalgamated ; but for the first 

 term of years at least you think there would be a con- 

 siderable additixm ? — ^Yes, so I take it. 



93. It would, I suppose, be an immense labour to in- 

 corporate one with the other? — ^Yes. With regard to the 

 cost of books and so on, there would be a little saving in 

 tlie purchase of new publications. But the library grant, 

 £150 to £180 a year, that I spend, is one of the smallest 

 of the grants, and the economy there would be a very 

 small one. For example, all new publications and periodi- 

 cals are now 'bought at both institutions, and they would 

 til en be bought in one institution, but as I point out, that 

 is a comparatively small sum per annum. 



94. Would it be necessary for the IN'atural History 

 ^luseum, even if it had not the existing plants to have 

 most of those periodicals, bearing in mind that they would 

 have the fossil plants still remaining ?— If they had the 

 fossil plants still remaining they would require" a certain 

 number of them, but not so many. A lot of the periodical 

 literature does not appear under the vote for my library, 

 but appears under the vote for the general library. All 

 the transactions of societies, and other works which deal 

 With more than one department are deposited in the 

 general library of the Museum in Cromwell-road, and not 

 paid for out of the botanical funds. 



95. TOiere a valuable collection is acquired for the 

 public, if it were not acquired for the Natural Historj- 

 Museum it would be probably desirahle it should be ac- 

 quired for Kew, or wherever the general collection was ? 

 — That is so. It is probably bought by one institution or 

 the other. 



96. Would there be any saving in that? — Taking that 

 into account the saving would not be a very great one. 

 It varies from one year to another, and it is a little diffi- 

 cult to give any figures in the matter, but it has fre- 

 quently happened that Kew has acquired a collection 

 which, if they had not acquired it, I should have been 

 very glad to recommend to the Trustees for purchase. It 

 is also frequently the other way about. 



97. Most of the money spent on purchases both at 

 Kew and the Natural History Museum, is for collections 

 which it is desira;ble to secure for the country, whether 

 we have one museum or two museums ? — ^Undoubtedly ; 

 there is very little overlapping indeed. With regard to 

 the printing of catalogues, etc., a certain amount of that 

 money comes back through the sale of those catalogues, 

 and that would, I take it, be in no respect lessened. Such 

 work would go on in connection with any amalgamation, 

 iust as the publication of the Cape Flora is proceeding at 

 Kew. The small item of binding -can be put with the 

 purchase of books, and that exhausts the figures, except 

 with regard to preparing. There would be no diminution 

 there. The preparing grant covers a great multitude of 

 sm_all matters, printing labek for the gallery, payment for 

 minor services rendered, carriage, and things like that, 

 A great many things come under this head which would 



