[ xii ] 



Supposed dif- 

 ference in aim 

 and result of the 

 two herbaria 

 non-existent. 



be drawn from the dangers of fire is that eTerv precaution should be taken 

 to make every herbarium buikling fire-proof ; and we desire to call attention 

 to the urgency of this at Kew. 



It has been urged that the two herbaria represent the results of the 

 study of plants from two different points of view and that their ol^jects are 

 fundamentally different. This appears to rest on a misconception of the 

 facts ; it seems to us that the methods and aims of the scientific study of 

 botany are identical in the two places. The scheme of differentiation 

 suggested by the Devonshire Commission has not been carried out, and 

 none other has been introduced or even suggested. 



Eivalry between Jt has been urged that the existence of the two establishments promotes 



th^^^*th'^^"^T°^^* ^ healthy spirit of rivalry, through which each is spurred to greater scientific 



flcial. ' activity. That a spirit of rivalry is promoted and does exist seems to be 



beyond question ; but whether that rivalry and competition have produced 

 beneficial effects may well be doubted. We do not, in this respect, lay 

 much stress on the fact that the two establishments, by bidding against 

 each other in the jDurchase of collections, unnecessarily increase the expen- 

 diture of pul^lic money. This may take place to a certain extent, but even 

 at the most it is of no very great moment. A more serious evil is the fol- 

 lowing. Though naturally no very definite statement has been made to us,, 

 indirect indications clearly show that the rivalry between two establishments 

 so very similar, each desirous to be recognised as the national botanical 

 establishment, has led and is leading to the existence of what might be 

 called an odium hotanimm very prejudicial to the best interests of botanical 

 science. So far from regarding the spirit of rivalry in question as an argu- 

 ment in favour of maintaining the two herbaria distinct, we are inclined ta 

 look upon it as a strong argument for union. 



The views of the Trustees of the British Museum on the subject of 

 the union of the two herbaria are contained in their letter to the Treasury 

 of the 12th July, 1899 (App. III., n. 11) ; to this, we have ascertained, they 

 have nothing to add. We observe, however, that they make no reference 

 either to the intrinsic increase of efficiency which must arise from the amalga- 

 mation of two institutions and staffs now doing the same work, or to the 

 scientific advantage of having type specimens collected under one roof instead 

 of two. Their views on other points do not appear to us to be supported 

 by the evidence which we have had before us. 



Taking so far as we have been able everything into consideration, and 

 regarding the question from the point of view of the main purpose for whicli 

 the two collections are maintained, namely, that of botanic research, and 

 therefore dealing in the first instance in the case of the British Museum with 

 the General Herbarium only, we have come to the conclusion that it is 

 desirable that the two herbaria should be united into one. 



Supposing union desirable, the question arises, shall the united 

 herbaria be placed at Kew or at the British Museum ? 



Kew Herbarium The evidence of the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens shows that 



and library cannot ^j^g ^^gg Qf ^^ Herbarium and Library there is not, as was urged b}^ some in 

 " '""""" former inquiries, merely for the adequate naming of the plants cultivated in 



the garden. It is the centre of all the varied activity, Imperial and other,. 

 of the place. If it were removed or even seriously diminished, " the work 

 of the establishment would be paralysed." The exposition of the work 

 carried on in the Boyal Botanic Gardens which has been laid before us 

 by the Director, and the references made to it by various witnesses, can 

 lead to no other conclusion than that any step which would injure the 

 present activity of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew would be a false 

 step ; the Herbarium must not be removed from Kew. 



Views of the 

 Trustees as to 

 union. 



Union of the two 

 herbaria is from 

 every point of 

 view desirable. 



be moved. 



On the other hand, so far as the British Museum itself is concerned, the 



British Museum 



be^mo\4Twithont evidence laid before us goes to show that the other Departments of the 



injury. Museum would at least not suffer material injury by the removal of the 



General Herbarium. That Herbarium is, at the most, very rarely consalt.ed 



