MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



25 



examiiieil by experts, aiul you get them as a rule far 

 better named than you dc at the l>ritish Museum. lu 

 the Britisli Museum I have seen three or four species 

 on one sheet. They were sent in u)uler the same name, 

 but they are not the same things, and because they liave 

 the same name they are put on the same sheet. Wlion 

 a stranger goes in, or a person who does not know the 

 plants, he really does not know which is the specimen 

 he wants to see, that is, the actually authentic speci- 

 men, because they have been laid in by men who are 

 not responsible for the naming. 



474. Do you find the same thing at Kew ? — In a fev/ 

 case." ; in the Algae I have found sioecimens which have 

 been laid in a great many years ago, from the ''Chal- 

 lenger ' Expedition. These were named apparently bj- 

 b.imebody who did not understand the Algae, and they 

 are not, of cuiirse, correct. But, as a rule^ taking the 

 two herbaria together, there is no comparison ; those 

 at Kew are far better named. 



475. If there were a transference of a portion of the 

 herbarium, what would you say to the retention of 

 the cryptogamic herbaria at South Kensington, and 

 the transference of the flowering plants to Kew ? — What 

 ought to be done would be that an outside expert should 

 be called in who was acquainted with each particiilar 

 branch, say Crombie for the Lichens, a man who knows 

 the plants, and he should be appointed to go through 

 the specimens, and see that the authentic specimens, 

 and no others, are on one sheet, so that one might be 

 quite sure of finding an authentic specimen for com- 

 parison. 



476. But apart from the method of doing it, would 

 the breaking of that collection into the two groups of 

 Phanerogams and Cryptogams be a bad thing to do, or 

 be an advantage ? Would it be of any advantage to 

 retain the cryptogamic collection in London if the 

 phanerogamic collection were transferred to Kew? — 

 There are comparatively few cryptogamic botanists as 

 compared with the phanerogamic, and I think as a rule 

 they would prefer to go to a place where they know 

 they can see everything. You do not want to go to 

 two places even to determine a Cryptogam. 



477. {Lord Avehury.) Tou referred just now to one 

 or two cases in which there were thrc;e or four species 

 on the same sheet, but I think yovi explained after- 

 wards that that was the way in which they had come 

 into the British Museum ?— No. For instance, the 

 Museum purchased a collection from Dr. Dickie, of 

 Aberdeen, and some of those are wrongly named. They 

 were not authenticated by the Museum ofScials before 

 they were put on sheets, and having the same name 

 they were placed on the sheet bearing that name. 



478. What you mean is that the identification was 

 not an identification by the officials of the British Mu- 

 seum, but by the person who sent the collection? — That 

 is so. 



479. When you have a considerable botanical au- 

 thority, is it not an advantage that you should know 

 what his views were when he has named a sjjecies ? — 

 I have always understood that one of the advantages 

 of these typical collections was that you had the criti- 

 cism of distinguished botanists on the plants ? — The 

 point is this : — It seems to me that when a specimen 

 comes in it should be as far as possible identified. The 

 original label should not be removed, but the plant 

 should be put where it really belongs. If you like to 

 give a cross-reference on the sheet above the name the 

 specimen bears, to the species to which it really be- 

 longs, it would be giving all that is wanted. But 

 when you go as a student who wants to find out a plant, 

 and you have a sheet before you with four different 

 plants on it, how can you know which is the right one ? 



480. You have been all the way through giving evi- 

 dence from the point of view of a person who wants 

 to find out the name of a plant ? — Every botanist wants 

 to do that. 



481. That is the first step, no doubt, but that is only 

 the beginning. I understand that one great advantage 

 of these typical collections was that you had specimens 

 Avhich were named by distinguished botanists, and you 

 had their views ? I want to get it clear whether you 

 think the authoritl3s of the British Museum should 

 have altered those names, or whether it was not better 

 to keep them as they were named by the particular 

 boi.anist from whom the collections were received? — If 

 thev had a sheet of authentic specimens, and you could 

 tell it was so, it would not matter at all how you 



3499 



arranged the others. If the officials in the Herbarium j\j^. j^ ^ 



liked to put all viith the same name, although they Holmes 



were different plants, on the same sheet, as represent- f.l.s. ' 



iiig the views of different botanical authorities, or the — '-' 



mistakes of different people, very good ; but it seems 8 Nov. 1900. 



to me it does not further botanical science to make it 



so difficult to find out which is an authentic example 

 of a species or variety, or whether the author is wrong 

 or not. 



482. Do you propose that the officials of the British 

 Museum should alter the names given to particular 

 specimens by the authorities who collec'ted them, and 

 give them the names whicli they think to be correct — 

 is that what you are advocating ? — I always understood 

 it was so important to know what the views were of the 

 botanists, so that in many cases you could correct the 

 names they had given to plants, and be able to say they 

 had given a name which was now abandoned? — ^I will 

 tell you what is done at Kew. 



483. I am only wishing to ascertain what your view 

 is, and how far you are wishing to criticise the officials 

 of the Museum ? — I do not wish to criticise them at all, 

 but only the mode in which the things are done. I have 

 nothing to say about the ofl[icials themselves. 



484. Do you think the names should have been 

 altered by the officials ? — ^I think if the practice which 

 is followed at Kew were followed at South Kensington 

 it would be a great advantage. When the plant is 

 found to be wrongly named, the correct name is put 

 above it, and the specimen is put in the place where 

 they think the plant really belongs. If you keep a 

 lot of plants wrongly named in a herbarium, it seems 

 to me 3'ou are obstructing botanical science, that is, 

 if there is no indication on the sheets that they are 

 wrongly named. 



485. Certainly, unless it is an authoritative name. 

 But if it is a name given by an authoritative botanist, 

 what then 1 — Those I have in my mind at the present 

 moment are the collection of Dr. Dickie, of Aberdeen, 

 sea weeds, with his own writing on them. Some of 

 those were not examined by him, because I know he 

 sent many of them to the late Mrs. Mary Merrifield, 

 of Stapleford, near Cambridge ; but his writing is on 

 those specimens, thus giving his authority to them. 

 Personally I know that many of them are wrongly 

 named. I have on one occasion spoken to Mr. Car- 

 ruthers about the matter, and asked him if he would 

 like me to write in pencil what I considered the proper 

 names to be, and he said " Yes," but subsequently the 

 collection came under other hands, and I found there 

 was an objection to my doing so. 



486. The particular case you refer to was Dr. Dickie's 

 collection ? — That is the one I had in my mind, but it is 

 not the only one. Now that Mr. Crombie has gone 

 through the Lichens they are splendidly named ; and 

 Mr. Gepp at the Museum has a key collection of 

 Mosses, so that if you want to see a typical specimen 

 of Moss you can compare it without going through 

 hundreds of sheets of specimens, many of whicli may 

 or may not be correctly named. 



487. You do not think, in fact, that Dr. Dickie's col- 

 lection was of suflicient importance to be left in the 

 condition in which it was received ? — There are many 

 collections of that kind which come into museums. 

 There are often collections coming into museums which 

 bear names, and those names, in my opinion, ought to 

 be criticised, and it ought to be seen whether the speci- 

 mens are right before they are mounted on a sheet with 

 an authentic specimen. 



3. You think Dr. Dickie's authority was not suffi- 

 ciently great for the names to be left ? — At the time, he 

 was practically the authority for the Algae in Great 

 Britain. 



489. The British Museum officials left the names on 

 Dr. Dickie's authority, as he left them, and I understood 

 that you were contending that they ought not to have- 

 done so, but that they ought to have altered the names 

 which Dr. Dickie had given ? — Yes, to the correct ones, 

 but not erasing his label, if they put them on a sheet 

 already bearing the correct name. Supposing a sheet 

 of Delesseria alata was found, and it was thought it 

 should be Delesseria angustissima, th.ey ought not to 

 have one name on the same sheet by the side of the 

 other, or one on the top and the other below. 



490. In your view. Dr. Dickie's authority was not 

 sufficient to justify the Museum in retaining his name 



D 



