MINUTES OF EVIDExVCE. 



29 



collection of dried plants should be in London, but that 

 it would be undesa-able to deprive Ke\v eiitiiel.r of a, 

 herbarium, which would enable the officials connected 

 with the gardens to determine the species of plants 

 growing in the gardens. 



569. The collection at the British Museum is not a. 

 c£>mplete one iji this sense, tbat it again and again occurs 

 That a botanist engage<l upon research is compelled, in 

 order to complete that reseai'ch, to consult also the col- 

 lection at Kew as weU as tbat of the British Museum ?— 



\VouId Tou permit me to say that there is no herbarium 

 in the world tliat in any sense is a complete one, and if 

 a botanist is engaged in an investigation and wants to 

 reach finality, he must not only consult Kew and the 

 British Museum, but lie must consult the other large 

 herbaria throughout the world. It would not be suffi- 

 cient for a botanist to complete has work at Kew or the 

 British Museum. Every great herbarium contains 

 material that the others do not possess. 



570. But quite apart from that, it has been represented 

 to us that there is not only loss of time, but, to a certain 

 extent, injury to researcli, and that a botanist engaged 

 in research has, as I have just si-d, after visiting the 

 British Museum to visit Kew, or after visiting Kew to 

 visit the British Museum, and it has been represented 

 that botanical research would be much assisted by the 

 two collections being under certain conditions amalga- 

 mated together? — I think there can be no doubt about 

 that. It would be easier for any botanist to consult the 

 two collections in one house than if they wexe separated 

 eight or ten miles frorm eacli other. 



571. But in your opinion the advantages which would 

 thus be gained would be more than counter-balanced by 

 •certain disadvantages which would result from the union 

 of the two, either in one place or the other? — ^The matter 

 that has impressed me in considering the question of 

 the one or two herbaria was mainly the possilbility of ioss 

 Tjy fire of either herbarium. If the two were put 

 together, and such a calamity as that were to happen, it 

 Tvould be absolutely irreparable. Nothing could be done 

 in the future to make up for such a tremendous loss. But 

 if one herbarium was lost by fire, that would be a great 

 calamity, but it would not be so serious as if both were 

 .lost. 



572. Is that your main reason for keeping up the two 

 separate herbaria ? — No ; it is not the main reason, but 

 it is to me a very important reason. 



573. What other reasons are present in your inind fcr 

 keeping the two distinct ? — I think that the two herbaria 

 represent different views of the Vegetable Kingdom, and 

 consequently are of great importance in the study of 

 botany. I think that any herbarium which excludes the 

 fossil plants wh'ioh are a part of the flora of the world 

 will exhibit an extremedy imperfect view of the Vege- 

 table Engdom. At present there is no collection of 

 ■fossils at Kew. The only place now where plants of the 

 living flora and of the fossil flora can be compared is in 

 the Natural History Museum. Then I think the breaking 



up of tbe great national biological collections of Soutli 

 Kensington by remoying any pari; of them to any distance 



from that building would be a calamity to biological 

 science, and that the separation of a herbarium from the 



-other divisions of the organic world would be a serious 



■calamity to science. 



574. That is to say tliat quite distinct from the ques- 

 tion of the fossil plants and tlieir special relation to 

 geology, you think it is of fundamental impori:ance that 

 the collections of all divisions of the living world should 

 "be placed together? — Certainly. 



575. Have you any otber reasons ? — Probably there are, 

 but I did not know in what direction you would ask 

 questions, and have not thought over the matter suffi- 

 ciently. 



576. Although you woi;l<l admit there would, be certain 

 advantages in having the two collections together, so 

 that tiiey might be studied at the same time •by an in- 

 vestigator, you think that these advantages are altogether 

 ■counter-balanced by the fact th?.t with the two collections 

 there is an extra protection against destruction by fire or 

 otherwise, and that it is essential that the fossil plants 

 should be studied in connection with the recent forms 

 .and in general that it is most undesirable to separate the 

 main botanical coUeotion from the other collections of 

 living things?— That is so. I have also been thinking 

 about the locality in which such a combined herbariuia 

 Tvould most properly be located. 



577. Tou are opposed to the combination, but sup- 



j)osi]ig the combination were effected, may I ask you ^)^,._ yy^ 

 whellier, in your opinion, it should be at Kew or the Carrufkers, 

 i>niish Museum? — v\ ith regard to foreign botanists it k.k.s. 



is quite a matter of indiiference where the collection is. 



Of course, foieign botanists have cump]:iincd that tliey 8 Nov. 1900. 



had to go to Kew to work, but I know that geueitilly ir, 



is a matter of indiiierence to them whether tlie united 

 collection is at Kew or the Briiish Museum. A man 

 coaning over to work at plants would t.alc'e his lodgings or 

 go to an liotel at Kew, and continue there to do his work. 

 But to English botanists scattered all over the country 

 or living in London, where there is a population of 

 sometliiiig like six mdlions of people, it is extremely in- 

 convenient, as has been expressed to me at innumerable 

 times, for them to have to go to Kew to consult the 

 herbarium. A man coming up to conduct an examination, 

 or a botanist who is in business in the country coming 

 up. or professional men who take up botany as a by-study 

 in the City, would find it extremely inconvenient if the 

 only collection of plants they could examine were to be 

 so far from the place they were living at as Kew. I have 

 in my mind men who have added important contributions 

 to botany, wlio could not have done so if they had of 

 necessity to go to Kew. Mr. iliers, for instance, the 

 famous South American botanist, was in business in the 

 City, and was a fairly regular attendant at the British 

 IMuseum Herbarium when it was at Bloomsbury, but he 

 could only spare an hour or two, because he liad his 

 London business. He has told me again and again that 

 it would have been impossiible for him to do this work 

 and attend to his bushiess if he had to go on every occa- 

 sion to Kew to consult the herbarium. I know there 

 are professional men who are in the same position, men 

 who find the information they want at the British 

 Museum, who would be prevented from getting it if they 

 had to go to Kew. 



578. In the event of the two being amalgamated 

 together in the British Museum, it would stili be neces- 

 sary to leave a herbaiium at Kew to be utilised in con- 

 nection with the living plants. That is an opinion I think 

 you stated before ; do you still hold it? — The position 

 that was taken up then by Mr. Bentham, and, I think, 

 iSir Joseph Hoolcer, was that a herbarium named at Kew, 

 and put into the cases at the British MuS'eum by one who 

 need not be an expert, would be sufficient material for 

 the collection of fossil plants which, in tiieir judgment, 

 should be retained at the British Mus3am. I pointed 

 out that such a collection would be amply suffiteient for 

 the naming of living plants, which were perfect and com- 

 plete, but would be useless for the determination of 

 fossil plants, which are fragmentary, and diffi- 

 cult to determine. Tou will find, sir, if you look at my 

 evidence, that it was with regard to a scientifically 

 arranged collection, represented, periiaps, by single spe- 

 cimens of each species, that I put it in evidence that 5uch 

 a collection would be sufficient for a garden, but not 

 sufficient for fossil botany. 



579. Would not the correct use of a public garden 

 and the right naming of all the plants lead possibly 

 to researches which would not be covered by such 

 a simple herbarium as you have in mind? Would yoc 

 not have to refer to authentic specimens of the types? — ■ 

 If they were sufficiently named by the officials in the 

 united herbarium on their authority, it seems to me that 

 everything would be supplied that could be needed for 

 the naming of plants in a garden. 



580. (Lord Avebury.) If I understand your position, 

 it is that the collection requiretl to facilitate the work- 

 ing of Kew is really not so great a collection as that 

 required to facilitate the working of the palosontological 

 collections in the Natural History Museum ? — That is 

 mj decided conviction. 



581. {Sir John Kirh.) In the_ event of the Kew 

 collections being transferred to the British Museum, 

 do you think there is sufficient accommodatim at pre- 

 sent, or would it require an expansion of the Botanical 

 Department to accommodate the whole? — It would be 

 impossible to accommodate them in the present room. 



582. Are there unoccupied galleries that could be 

 devoted to it? — The original design of the building, 

 which is incomplete at the British Museum, is to retire 

 the building with a face to the Royal College of Science, 

 and that building, which is very much needed in the 

 Geological Department, would afford ample accom- 

 modation for what is needed for the herbarium. 



583. Then, until a new building or an extension of 

 the building was carried out, they would be hardly 

 able to accommodate the whole Kew collection in the 

 event of a transfer being decided on? — I tliink not. 



