MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



39 



they noTV formed, as much a part of the Geological D(n 

 jartmenb as any other sijecimens of tli2>. department. 



882. Then do we understand that in case of the trasia- 

 ference of the general herbarium to Kew you would also 

 recommend the transference to Kew of all fossil plants 

 at present in the British Museum, wherever they may bo 

 placed, save possibly tliose in the public gaUerics used 

 for popular illustration ? — I slioidd not go quite so far as 

 that, I tliink. My own feeling is, from what experience 

 I have had at working at these things, tliat the ideal ar- 

 rangement would be for the fossil plajits as a whole to be 

 arranged with the recent plants, or put at least in the 

 same building, but there ought to be a second or smaller 

 collection chosen from rather a different point of view 

 to be arranged with the animal fossils to illustrate the 

 characteristic and most important fossil plants of each 

 geological period. Tlie bulk of the fossil plants, how- 

 ever, I should prefer to see with the recent plants. 



883. Even in the case of this smaller collection arranged 

 stratigrapliically in connection with the other fossils of 

 which you speak, it would ibe desiraible, would it not, to 

 -snave at hand for reference some collection of recent plants ? 

 — If what you propose was carried out, the general her- 

 barium being transferred to Kew, the mass of the fossil 

 plants being stiU retained at the British Museum, it 

 -would then be most distinctly necessary, would it not, 

 to have at the British Museum for the purpose of the 

 proper study of these fossil plants, collections of recent 

 plants? — Yes, I think it would, except that it would 

 etiU be necessary in working at fossil plants to make fairly 

 frequent visits to Kew. One has not only to look at the 

 dried plants in a herbarium, but very frequently I have 

 myself found it most' helpful and useful to look at the 

 living plants in the houses at Kew, because there one sees 

 an individual plant bearing a number of fronds, and one 

 is able to notice the variations that occur in the fronds 

 of the same plant. That assists one a great deal in cor- 



■relating fraigmenta^ry fossils. 



884. Would you golo far as to say that in the botanical 

 etudy of fossil plants access, for the purpose of study, 

 to living forms was aihnost, if not quite, as necessary as 

 ac-cess to a herbarium of dried piants? — ^Yes, I think I 

 should say that. In order to have the opportTinity of 

 •doing the work as thoroughly as possible one ought cer- 

 tainly to have a good collection of recent plants at hand. 



885. So that speaking in the interests of botany only, 

 and leaving geological interests on one side, it is actually 

 desirable that the fossil plants should b& transferred to 

 Xew, because there they can be studied much more con- 

 veniently in connection with living plants? — ^Certainly. 



886. Disregarding for the present the view you have 

 put before us, supposing it was decided to retain the fossil 

 plants at the British Museum, it would be desirable, 

 even if you had to go to Kew to compare the living plants, 

 to have at the British Museum a collection of dried 

 olants? — Yes, I think it would ibe desirable, in that it 

 would save a cei-tain nuimber of journeys to Kew. 



887. Supposing that to be the case, couJd you describe 

 in any way what kind of herbarium you think would 'be 

 sufficient for the purpose ? Would a henbarium in which 

 the specimens were autlientic specimens, not type speci- 

 mens, be sufficient, if I may draw a distinction in that 

 ■way? You have type specimens which are of historic 

 •value ; would it be sufficient, for instance, if you wanted 

 to compare your fossil with the living plant to have an 

 .ordinary herbarium with specimens of the pl^nt without 

 the necessity of having the type specimen ? — I think so ; 

 .so long as the specimen is an authentic specimen it need 

 not be the type specimen for ordinary puxpoaes of com- 

 .parison. 



888. 'So that' a relatively simple reference herbarium, 

 .such as might 'be used for the mere identiiication of plants 

 occasionaUy, or by an amateur, would be sufficient for the 

 j)urpos6 ? — ^You mean chiefly excluding type specimens ? 



889. Yes ? — ^Yes. Of course I think it is very important 

 to have as complete a coUection as possible, excluding for 

 the moment type specimens, which are not essential ; but 

 I think a collection vagnt not to be a small one selected 

 .for the purposes of coaaparison, but a collection including 

 Borne of the moat rare Y&ing plants, because it is frequently 

 the rarest plants whi**i are most useful. 



890. It should be «p complete herbarium in. the sense 

 •of having representatives of all plants, but should not 

 ■necessarily ibe a herD^vrium in which all the specimens 

 were type specimeru- • — No ; that I think is not essen- 

 tial. 



891. {Sir John Kirk.-) i understand you draw your 

 ■-aonolusiona chiefly from cryptogamic plants, with very 



little reference to the flowering plants ? — My work has 

 gcner;illy conj>i;:ted in working at the cryptogams and 

 the gymnosii)erius. Cycads I have worked at a good deal, 

 'but hitherto I have done practically nothing with the 

 dicoityledons or monocotyledons. 



892. I suppose you find very few plants that are speci- 

 fically the same, but you look to alliances and similarities ? 

 — Certainly. The plants I have worked at are chiefly 

 fjoin the mesozoic formation, the Wealden and Jurassic 

 rocks. I have not worked at the more redent fossil 

 plants. 



893. Do you fiad herbarium specimens of flowering 



plants of less use to you than the vascular cryptogams ? — 

 I have really had no experience of that. 



894. You have not worked much aA that? — ^I have 

 written two or t'/tree British Museum catalogues. I men- 

 tion that 'becauae that is what my work has consisted of 

 chiefly, and the floras I have had to describe have been 

 of the mesozoic age, and no flowering plants are in the 

 collections I have had to deal with. I have not bad, there^ 

 fore, to refer to the flowering plants. 



895. Do you study the microscopical structure largely 

 in the case of the fossil plants ? — As regards the. mesozoic 

 p'lants, very few of them unfortunately have their struc- 

 ture preserved. The anatomical fossil botany work I 

 have done has been in connection ivith palaeozoic plants. 

 I have worked at those to some extent. 



896. You go by exAemal similarity more ? — ^Yes. One 

 is bound to for the most part in the case of the mesozoic 

 plants. 



897. Do you find the li^'ing plant, where you can get 

 it, more useful than the dry ? — Yes. 



898. Where you can compare a number of forms of the 

 same plant to show the variations ? — ^Yes. 



899. {Professor Balfour.) Suppose you had a selected 

 herbarium kept at South Kensington, all the 

 other herbarium specimens being sent to Kew, would 

 that be at all a misleading herbarium — ^would it be apt 

 to mislead people in their comparisons? — Because of its 

 /imperfection ? 



900. Yes ? — ^It migiht, I think. One mght look through 

 that herbarium you describe and come to the conclusion 

 th'at a plant which it was wanted to compare with the 

 recent forms was not represented among the recent types. 

 I have found more than once that it is only some of the 

 most rare and least known among the recent forms, ferns 

 more particularly, that one can match best with the fossils, 

 so that I think it might, 'be distinctly misleading. 



901. But I suppose, just as in connection with other 

 kinds of work, before a piece of work of that kind was 

 completed it would be quite easy to make a comparison ? 

 — Yes. 



902. You have to do that even now ? — ^Yes. 



9QZ. 'So that it would be no less objectionable than the 



present system ? — No. The existence of the large her- 

 barium at the Britisli Museum does not in the least render 

 it unnecessary for me to go to Kaw. 



904. You have still to go to Kew ? — ^Yes. 



905. There would be no more trouble then? — ^Very 

 little. 



906. One thing I should like to ask you is this. You 

 recognise that a herbarium is an extreimely important 

 thing in connection with a botanic garden ? — Yes. 



907. It has 'heen put to us that it is more impoatant to 

 have a complete herbarium 'by the side of a collection of 

 fossils than by the side of a collection of living plants ? — 

 I should have, thought not. 



903. At any rate if this herbarium was brought down 

 to Kew you would liave it there both for the garden and 

 for the fossils ? — ^Yes. 



909. And that would 'be a distinct advantage ? — I think 

 it would myself. 



910. It has been pointed out that the herbarium at thb 

 British Museum, within recerut times at least, has not 

 'been used in connection with the fossils. As far as one 

 can gather, you yourself. Dr. Scott, and Professor Bower, 

 have been about the only users of it. I take it Dr. Scott's 

 work has been almost entirely palaeozoic work, and that 

 has 'been aill microscopic ? — Yes, practically paleozoic and 

 microscopic. 



911. And Prof essoo* 'Bower's work in the same way has 

 been entirely microscopic ? — ^Yes. 



912. So that practically you are the only person who 

 has been using the herbarium in cwnnection T^'ith these 

 fossil plants, and vou have been using it eotirely for the 



J/r. A. a 

 Seivard, 



I'.R.S. 



15 Nov. 1900 



