[ xi j 



of having in the Bi'itish Museiun " a g-cograpliically arranged collection as P'^i'- 5^- 

 the complement of the purely systematically arranged collection at Kcw." 



The Connnission accordingly recommended 



VI. That the Collections at the British Museum be maintained and Page 23. 

 arranged with special reference to the geographical distribution 

 of plants and to pakxiontology, and that the collections at Kew 

 be maintained and arranged with special reference to systematic 

 botany. 



This recommendation has not been carried out. The Department of Recommendations 

 Botany of the British Museum has not been developed in the direction of ?f Devonshire 

 botanical pah^ontology. The collections of fossil plants are not under the ca^rieclTnto e'ffect. 

 charge of the Keeper of Botany, but are under the charge of the Keeper of 

 Geology. The general herbarium is not arranged geographically, but 

 systematically ; indeed it is actually less geographically arranged than is the 

 herbarium at Kew, since in the latter, species within each genus are arranged 

 geographically, whereas in the former a systematic arrangement is maintained 

 to the end. Except for this geographical feature of the Kew Herbarium 

 and for the fact that each herbarium contains " type specimens," which the 

 other does not, the two herbaria may be considered as duplicates one of the 

 other. The objects which the Devonshire Commission had in view when it 

 recommended the maintenance of l)otli establishments have not been 

 attained. 



The question of the union of the botanical collections of the British Union of the 

 INIuseum and of Kew has thus been raised again and again. Each time the ^^° terbana 

 (question has been decided in the negative, though not always for the same su^aested 

 reason ; and the fact that the question has from time to time been raised 

 anew may be taken as indicating either that the circumstances affecting the 

 (juestion have from time to time changed (which is the case), or that the 

 previous decision did not appear to be based on convincing grounds. It is 

 to be noted also that union at Kew has been most usually suggested, not 

 union at the British Museum. 



We may now consider the arguments for and against union of the two 

 herbaria which have been submitted to us : — 



The first and chief function of a national herbarium is to serve as an Union must pro- 

 adequate instrument of botanic research. Evidence has been brought "^ote better re- 

 before us that the two herbaria would perform this function far better if ^'^^i'^^^- 

 brought together than they do in their 23resent separated condition. All 

 botanists seem to agree on this point. Xot only is research hindered by the 

 incon^venience and waste of time involved in consulting first one herbarium 

 and then the other, but we are assured that enquiry thereby suffers a greater 

 injury than mere hindrance ; by not being able to consult all the specimens 

 available for study at the same time and in the same place the investigator is 

 apt to be led into errors which would be avoided w^ere the two herbaria 

 united. The requirements of research point most distinctly to the desirability 

 of uniting the two herbaria. 



Various arguments, however, have been presented to us in favour of Argimients f or 

 maintaining the tvv^o herbaria separate in the interests of research. separation. 



,It has been urged that since the two collections "are to a considerable 

 extent in duplicate," nothing could l^e gained by bringing them together. 

 An adequate reply to this is furnished by the consideration urged at the 

 very beginning of this report, that the very large duplication involves an 

 undesirable waste of scientific energy, and, it may be added, of public money. 



It has been urged that the risks arising from fire are lessened ; if one Risk of fire an 

 herbarium were burnt, the other would still remain. This argument really argument for a 

 applies to type specimens only, for other specimens might be replaced ; but ^^'^-P^'oo* '™i^^- 

 it does not hold good for these, since if Kew were iDurnt, t}^e specimens, °' 

 not existing at the British Museum, would be lost and vice verm. We 

 cannot attach much importance to this argument. The one conclusion to 



