34 



DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON BOTANICAL WORK; 



Dr. M. T. 719. Ton gave me rather that impression. I felt 



Masters, rather at a loss to understand why you were in favour 



r.E.s. of amalgamation at all if you felt the British Museum 



collection was unimportant? — That was not quite what 



14jNov. 19 jo. I meant. The Kew collections are more impoitant than 

 those at the Museum in my opinion. 



720. Does the little use you hare made of the British 

 Museum depend on the nature of j-our particular work ? 

 — In all the monographs I have been engaged on I have 

 used the Museum. 



721. {Chairman.) There are groups of plants which 

 are far better represent-ed at the British Museum than 

 at Kew, are there not ? — ^I should not say so. 



722. That does not come within your knowledge ? — 

 No. I am speaking of flowering plants ; of the crypto- 

 gams, I know nothing and can say nothing. 



723. {Mr. Spring Bice.) I gather that what you, and 

 other workers like you, most desire is a collection as 

 complete as possible 1 — ^Certainly. 



724. And if they have the collection as complete as 

 possible it does not very much matter within reason- 

 able limits where it is — it does not matter vrhether it is 

 five miles off or ten miles off? — No. 



725. Are you aware that under the present system 

 there are two institutions each trying to get a collection 

 as complete as possible — Kew and the Nattiral History 

 Museum ? — Yes. 



726. And that one sometimes gets a novelty or 

 unique object and the other sometimes gets it, and that 

 there is no principle on which these things are 

 arranged 1 — Yes. 



727. Do you think that is conducive to the scientific 

 progress of one or other collection ? — ^I think it is a 

 pity, and that it should be obviated in some way or 

 other. 



728. Yoa think then that that form of competition is 

 not one'conducive to the interests of science ? — No, it is 

 not. 



729. Assiiming there ought to be only one collection 

 absolutely complete, can you suggest any function for 

 separation, short of its being complete ? — I think I 

 should put all these uniqxie things you speak of at Kew, 

 and should stop the enlargement of the British Museum 

 Herbarium — ^keep it as it is, but not increase it. All 

 new things might go to Kew. 



730. As between one of two institutions, one of them 

 has got at present things which the other has not, and 

 vice versa. Wo aid you think it scientifically desirable 

 to rectify that state of things ? — No ; I do not think it 

 makes any difference. 



731. I ask because one scientific witness said that he 

 had to begin work at one institution, it does not matter 

 which, then go to the second to correct his results, and 

 then go back to the first to adjust them. Does not that 

 put friction in the way of scientific progress ? — ^I think 

 aot. 



732. Do you attach importance to that ? — ^Practically 

 none. 



733. Taking things as they exist, you say that if you 

 had to do it again you would not allow that state of 

 things to grow up ? — Certainly not. If I was starting 

 a fresh one, I would have one collection and one only. 



734. Do you think it is possible in the future to aim 

 at having only one complete collection ? — Yes. 



735. One that aims at completeness, because we 

 -know that it can never be complete ? — ^I think so. 



736. You have not answered my question that sup- 

 posing yoa had only one, and there were reasons for 

 having another of sorts, whether you could lay down 

 an aim for the second one short of completeness ? — 

 I should make the aim in the second one purely educa- 

 tional, and the aim of the other for research purposes. 



737. {Chairman.) Surely in botanical research it is 

 not only waste of time but really introducing imperfec- 

 tions in the research having to go backwards and for- 

 "wards from one place to another and never being able 

 to get the whole of your material before you at any 

 oiifc moment? — In practice I do not think it makes 

 ranch difference. One goes occasionally to the Museum 

 and more frequently to Kew. The occasional visit to the 

 Museum does not make much difference. 



738. Kew, you say, is very largely consulted by horti- 

 culturists ? — Certainly. 



739. And the British Museum occasionally only? — 

 Occasionally, as far as I know. 



740. You have had very large expenienco of horticul- 

 turists, and from your experience miojht one say rarely 

 or occasionally ?— Occasionally, I think, is the best word. 



741. {Lord Avebury.) Has Kew a special teratologi- 

 cal collection? — ^No, it had once. 



742. {Frof. Balfour.) What has become of it? — The 

 collection is now in the Museum of the Royal College of 

 Surgeons. I had a very large collection, wliich I could 

 not keep, and so I gave it to Kew, but after many years 

 I found it at the College of Surgeons, where it had been 

 transferred. 



743. {Lord Avebury.) Under what authoritv was that 

 done ?— I do not know ; I suppose Sir William Dyer's. 

 He was turning some things out at Kew, and I was sur- 

 prised to find it at the College of Surgeons. 



744. {Chairman). How long ago was that ?— Several 

 years ago. The College of Surgeons asked me to make 

 a catalogue of it, which I did about five or six years ago. 



745. {Prof. Balfour.) Is that much used now by 

 students at the the College of Surgeons ?— I can Hardly 

 tell you. 



746. Is it accessible ?— Perfectly accessible. 



747. {Lord Avebury.) Would you transfer the fossil' 

 plants from the British Museum? — ^No. 



748. Is it not rather important to have fossil planits 

 and recent plants together for the purpose of study ?— 

 One could easily go to Kew once to see the plante. 



749. Would you propose to leave the fossil plants? 

 — Yes, with the geological collections. 



750. You do not think a separation of the living from 

 the fossil plants would be any practical inconvenience? 

 — 2vo; you could easily go to Kew to see the living 

 affinities. 



751. In arranging the fossils is it not important to 

 have a collection of living forms for the purpose of com- 

 parison ? — Certainly. 



752. From that point of view it would be desirable 

 to have hving forms wherever the fossil plants were, 

 would it not?— Yes, but it would be only a few, and 

 tlia:. could be easily managed. 



753. Do I understand that you would Jiave a oollec- 

 lecnon of living forms so far as was desirable for the 

 purpose of the study of the fossil ones?— Certainly. 



_ 754. Therefore you would not merely keep a-n educa- 

 tional collection at the British Museum, but you would 

 have a collection of living forms, such as would be de- 

 siry,b]e for the purpose of comparison with the fossil 

 foiTiiS ?— Yes ; it would come under the Educational 

 Department. 



755. Would it not be very difficult to say beforehand 

 what collections of living forms you would want for the 

 purpose of comparison with fossil ones, because new 

 fossils are continuously turning up belonging to a grpeat 

 number of the natural orders? — ^The Director could 

 always apply to Kew and get special ones up. 



756. {Prof. Balfour.) From the journalistic stand- 

 point you have no doubt a large number of specimens con- 

 stantly sent to you by correspondents who wish for their 

 names. Do you find that the fact of having the British 

 Museum in^ Cromwell Eoad is any advantage? — Yes ; 

 the authorities of the British Museum are kind enough 

 to name things for me. 



757. What I meant was, do journalists, members of 

 your staff, for instance, go to the British Museum to 

 get them named, or do you find that Kew is near 

 enough for you ?— Latterly we have sent everything to 

 the British Museum, and sometimes I go myself. 



758. Did you send them to be named bv the staff? 



Yes. 



759. Of course it would be as easy to send them to 

 Kew as far as i.hat is concerned ? — Yes. 



760. {Mr. Spring Bice.) Those would be British 

 plants chiefly? — No. 



761. {Prof. Balfour.) They would be plants of all 

 sorts? — Yes, garden plants. 



762. Why do you not send them to Kew if you 

 find Kew is so much better arranged? — Because I find 

 there is too great friction. We always used to send them 

 to Kew, but the Director objected, and there was so 

 much friction that we have lately sent them eis-ewhere. 



