46 



DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON BOTANICAL WORK 



Dr. H. 



Woodvjard, 



F.E.S. 



28 Nov. 19Ck;i. tenth 



three thousand, probably, is the extreme number of 

 specimens which Mr. Murray really transferred, which 

 did not already belong to the Department. Of course, 

 compared with the 30,000, it would be only about one- 



1064. Are they now all in your Department under 

 your charge ? — Yes, under my charge entirely. I 

 should say that the number of 30,000 includes the 

 "Williamson collection, which was purchased in 1896, 

 numbering two thousand specimens. Those are all 

 microscopic sections mounted on glass. 



1065. It has been represented to us that fossil 

 jolants are more valuable m research to botanists than 

 to geologists. With reference to that, can you state to 

 what extent the fossil plants imder your charge have 

 been xised by geologists in geological research during 

 recent times, say ten years or so 1 — It is very difficult to 

 distinguish amongst the men who come to the Depart- 

 ment how many of them are botanists and how many 

 geologists. I asked a palteo-bo+anist the day before 

 yesterday, whether I might claim him as a geologist as 

 well as a botanist, to which he replied he was not a 

 geologist at all. I said " About one-half ? " He said, 

 " Xo, not one-quarter." I think that makes it ex- 

 tremely difficult to say how far they are one or the 

 other. Again. I may venture to j)oint out to you that 

 although my Department is called the Geological De- 

 partment it is really the Department of Palaeontology, 

 and that the workers in it are all biologists. We 

 have no geological collecition. strictly speaking. 

 The collections are nearly all arranged zoologically 

 and botanically, and are quite distinct from that of 

 Jermyn Street, which is a stratigraphical collection. 

 Since Mr. Wa4;.erhoiise's time we have gone upon the 

 principle tliat it is undesirable to have two strati- 

 graphical collections, and our collection has been 

 arranged on zoological lines on that account. I 

 find it very difficult to answer your question with 

 regard to the distinction between botanists and geolo- 

 gists using the collection. 



1066. What was meant was rather this : whether the 

 fossil ijlants were examined with a view to their throw- 

 ing light on botanical problems, or with a view to their 

 throwing light on geological problems — the one we may 

 call botanical research and the other geological re- 

 search ? — I think most largely for botanical research, 

 but there have been a good many geologists 

 using them. I may mention the names of Mr. 

 Etheridge, Mr. Clement Reid, the late Duke of Argvll, 

 Mr. J. Starkie Gardner, Mr. P. Eufford, Mr. R. Kid- 

 ston. Dr. C. I. Forsyth Major. Dr. George J. Hinde, 

 Dr. Wheelton Hind, and Professor T. Rupert Jones, 

 all of whom have used the collection, if I may say so. 

 geologically or palseontologically. On the other 

 hand, I have to mention botanists such as Count Solms- 

 Laubach, Mr. A. C. Seward. Professor D. Stur of 

 Vienna, Dr. D. H. Scott, Mr. Carruthers. the late 

 Baron von Ettingshausen. Professor Weiss, the late 

 Professor W. R. McZsTab, Professor F. O. Bower, the 

 late Professor Williamson. Dr. A. B. Rendle. and Mr. 

 A. J. Maslen. who have all worked on the collection 

 and done good work from the botanical side. 



1067. From the list you have read one would rather 

 infer that research on the botanical side was larger 

 than on the geological side ? — I think so. I may ven- 

 ture to point out to you — although you are already 

 very well aware of it — that there is a great deal to be 

 done with fossil plants, as with other organisms, in 

 considering the question of the appearance of life in 

 time, and of geographical distribution. Those are 

 points which of covirse, may be considered as more 

 palseontological than botanical. although palseo- 

 botanists would no doubt also take them into con- 

 sideration in their work. Still, that is a very impor- 

 tant side of paleobotany, the question of distribution 

 of forms over the surface of the earth in past geological 

 times. 



1068. In reference to the desirability of uniting the 

 collections of recent plants, the herbaria at present at 

 Kew and at the British Museum respectively, in one 

 place, it has been urged on one side that they should 

 be united at Kew. Then the question has arisen, 

 siipposing that the recent plants were placed at Kew. 

 what should be done wuth the fossil plants ? How 

 would your Department, as a Department of Geology, 

 suffer from the transference of the whole collection of 

 fossil plants to Kew? — It would, of course, be a 

 gradual dismemberment of the so-called Geological 



Department. I am aware that the late Director, Sir- 

 ■^ilham Flower, and the present Director, Professoir 

 Lankester, have both strongly desired to make one^ 

 great biological series, and then, of course, geology to ■ 

 a great extent would disappear. Some work in°that 

 direction has already been done, and some in the way 

 of introducing living forms among fossil forms. A't 

 first I did not see that this inquiry applied to me at all, 

 but I noticed, on carefully re-reading Mr. Daydou- 

 Jackson's notice to me, that it did apply to the palseo- 

 botanical collection under my charge, and I should 

 like to mention that I never understood there was any 

 intention of making a collection of fossil plants at 

 Kew. Indeed, Sir William Thiselton-Dyer in 189&' 

 wrote to Sir William Flower with reference to the- 

 Williamson collection. He was cliallenged : " Whv 

 do not you buy the collection for Kew, as you are sO' 

 anxious that this collection should not go out of the^ 

 country ? We have no money to purchase it just now ; 

 why not secure it for Kew, as it is a purely structural 

 collection?" Sir William Thiselton-Dyer replied, "I 

 have no intention of making any collection of fossil 

 plants at Kew. and, therefore, l" cannot purchase th? 

 Williamson collection." That was Thiselton-Dyer's ■ 

 opinion in 1895. It would be a great loss to geological 

 science, as well as to palseobotany, to break up the 

 collection either by taking the wliole, or by dividing' 

 it. The collection is not merely a British plant collec" 

 tion. but a collection made from the fossil remains of" 

 plants all over the world. 



1069. Tou think your Department would seriously 

 suffer, not only from the transference of all the fossil 

 plants, but by a transference which would permit the 

 maintenance at the British Museum of a sufficient num-- 

 ber of specimens to serve as illustrations of geological 

 truths ? — ^If the Government decided to remove tlie^ 

 fossil plants to Kew, with the recent plants, at least ifc. 

 might be possible to leave a general, illustrative series- 

 of plants behind which might serve for the use of the 

 ordinary student, but it would not satisfy the require- - 

 ments of a scientific palseobotanist. 



1070. Or a scientific geologist? — ^A scientific geolo-- 

 gist. hardly, either, especially if he were looking at 

 the plants in a broad way, say, from the geographical' 

 distribution qiiestion of carboniferous plants in past 

 times over the whole of the earth. 



1071. A geologist having recourse to fossil plants in. 

 geological research, would not meet with what he needed' 

 in the mere illustrative collection ? It would be, in all 

 probability, necessary for him to have recourse to a larger^ 



collection containing a number of forms of great value ? 



I think so. 



1072. That is your opinion ? — ^I think so. 



1073. So that the maintenance of a mere illustrative ■ 

 collection would not satisfy the wants of those who' 

 are engaged in geological research at the Museum ? — No. 

 I think it ought, as a national exhibition, to be a more- 

 complete series than a collection which one might 

 almost call elementary, as a few examples of fossil 

 plants would be. One ought to expect to find in the 

 British Museum a better collection than that, such a col-- 

 lection, in faot, as we now possess. 



1074. And nothing short of that 1 " Elementary " may 

 be very elementary, but you migKt Have a collection to 

 some extent sufficiently wide to satisfy the demands of a 

 geological enquirer^ something which need not be called ' 

 elementary, and yet leave a sufficient number of speci- 

 mens to be transferred elsewhere ? — ^Tes. As I said be- 

 fore, I never contemplated the removal of the palseo-- 

 hotanical collection, and therefore it comes upon me • 

 rather as a surprise, although I know the tendency at 

 the present time is rather to consider that the palseon- 

 tological collection in that sense, being only a part of ' 

 zoology and botany, should be dismembered. There- 

 fore I am prepared to suffer martyrdom in the caiise of ' 

 science. 



1075. But I gather that the change is one which you^ 

 would speak of as martyrdom? — Only, of course, to older 

 men like myself, who have always viewed palaeontology 

 as a distinct subject. If I live long enough I shall pro- 

 bably be converted entirely to the present biological 

 aspect of the question. 



1076. May I ask whether the geologists in your depart- 

 ment make any large use of the general botanical her*- 

 barium for the purpose-of geological research ? — It has been ■ 



