50 



DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE OX BOTANICAL WORK : 



Prof. E. R. 



Lankester, 



LL.D., F.E.S. 



s 



28 Nov. 1900 



from the transference? — ^No, I do not — I do not think 

 they would suffer in any way. 



1140. You do not think the Zoological Department 

 derives beneiit from having in tlie same building the 

 botanical collections? — No. I think that such advan- 

 tage as exists is of the most minimal kind, that is to 

 say, it might occasionally be desirable, but very occa- 

 sionally, for a botanist to be consulted or the botanical 

 collections to be consulted with regard to some matter 

 which interested the Zoological Department, but that 

 would be very rare, and it is by no means important 

 that such means of consultation should exist in the 

 same building. 



1141. So that, as far as you are aware of the work of 

 the Zoological Department, that would not be injured 

 by tlie transferencs of the general her*barium ? — .1 should 

 distjinctly say it would not be injured. 



1142. Then with regard to the Geological Depart- 

 ment, limiting ourselves ait fiiisit to the general her- 

 barium, would that Department be injured by the 

 transference of ifihe general hei'lbarium to Kevv, or 

 would any injury which might be so inflicted be 

 remedied by retaining at the British Museum, not the 

 complete authentic collections that at present exist 

 there, but a fairly complete general herbarium of refer- 

 ence ? — I think it should be remembered that the 

 Geological Department of the Natural History Museum 

 is essentially a palseontological Department. It is 

 really mainly palseo-zoological, and is treated from 

 that point of view, and arranged and kept from that 

 point of view. A small proportion of the collections 

 consist of f'Oissil planits, i.e., of palseo-boitany. I do not 

 myself think there is any advantage in the presence of 

 a botanical herbarium of an extensive kind in close 

 contact with this collection of fossil plants. I do not 

 think that it assists in any important way in the study 

 or appreciation or care of the collection of fossil plants. 

 Those who are engaged in studying fossil plants do 

 not want to consult, pari passu with their studies, a 

 herbarium of dried recent plants. If questions arise 

 as to the affinities of fossil plants, as they must neces- 

 sarily arise, and it is necessary to consider the struc- 

 ture of recent jilants in tha.t matter, fuch questions are 

 noit capable of immediaite solution by comparison. The 

 person who is so ooncerned probat>ly lias himseilf 

 material bearing on the matter, or be obtains the 

 material from a herbarium or garden or a collection of 

 plants, and carries on his studies. It is not by any 

 means the same question as comparing the flora 

 broiight home from some particular island with the 

 existing collection. The whole process of comparing 

 fossil plants with recent structures is quite different 

 from 'thait, and involves mierosoopioail study and 

 special jnethods, which the contiguity of a herbarium 

 would not facilitate. 



1143. You said that the Department of Geology is 

 teally a Department of Palaeontology ? — ^Yes. 



1144. And that the collections whidh are palseo- 

 zoological are very much more numerous and com- 

 plete than the collections which are paleeo-botanical ? 



—Yes. 



1145. But is it not the fact that the palseo-botanical 

 collection is a very rich and large one from the point of 

 view of palseo-botany ? — Certainly, a very valuable and 

 extensive collection. 



1145. Do you think it desirable, in the interests of 

 palaeontology and of biology generally, that the 

 palseo-botanical collections should be housed in the 

 same building as the palseo-zoological collections, or 

 would you say that the transference of the fossil plants 

 from the British Museiim to Kew, supposing there 

 were reasons for that transference, would be a step not 

 to be taken? — ^It seems to me ithat it is to a very large 

 extent a matter of convenience ; that there is no 

 general reason which can be assigned for keeping to- 

 gether a collection of fossil plants and of fossil animals 

 because they are both fossils. That appears to me not 

 to have any particular value or meaning. If the col- 

 lections were arranged and were considered geologi- 

 cally, and they were treated from that point of view, 

 then, of course, you would use them in connection with 

 difi'erent strata and different localities, specimens of 

 the plants and specimens of the animals together for 

 the purpose of geological inference and study. But 

 where they are treated simply as plants, and pirt aside 

 from the animals, and not treated geologically, I do 

 not see any advantage in their association with the 

 remains of animals. Therefore, if it were convenient 



on other grounds to have them in a separate building,. 

 I think there would be no disadvantage to the zoolo-- 

 gical collections in doing so. Besides, I think it is. 

 worth noting that the persons who study fossil plants, 

 are botanists, that is to say, there is no special type of" 

 investigator who makes fossil plants his sole study, in the ■ 

 saime way that you get a paliBontologist who entirely occu- - 

 pies himsedf with fossil bones or fossil shells. Fossil, 

 plants are studied by botanists, and on that account I. 

 should say on scientific grounds the indication was 

 that fossil plants should |be placed with the great 

 botanical collections where they would be most readily ' 

 accessible to botanists. 



1147. You regard the palteontological collections as 

 really part of the zoological collections, as illustrating - 

 the great problemiiS of zoology? — ^Yes, but they actually- 

 form part of the Geological Department. 



1148. I am iising the word zoology in its wider form, 

 or I might say biology, if you prefer that? — They arc 

 treated from that point of view in the British Museum, 

 not as a geological collection, but as a codlection of extinct, 

 animals arranged zoologically and studied zoologically. 

 They are not treated as geological specimens. 



1149. It is, of course, most desirable that they should, 

 be kept in connection with the collections of recent 

 forms ? — Most desirable — essential. 



1150. But speaking as a biologist, you do not think 

 that there are such close connections between all the 

 animals forms and plant forms as to render it most . 

 desirable that all the plant forms, recent as well as 

 extinct, should be placed in the same building as the 

 collection of animal forms, recent and extinct ? — I do 

 not think that any such close connection exists. Practi- - 

 cally and theoretically I think there is not that con- - 

 nection. Actually, in the case of study, there are not 

 the same persons concerned and interested ; and for 

 various reasons connected with the possibilities of 

 having living specimens of plants, it seems to m© 

 desirable that the botanical collection should be treated ' 

 in a different place, and on a different footing to tho 

 zoological collection. 



1151. The transference of the herbarium at Kew to 

 the British Museum would occupy room that you think 

 there may be a demand for on the part of the zoological . 

 collections 1 — ^With regard to that, it appears to me 

 that if the collections were transferred from Kew to • 

 Cromwell Eoad it would certainly necessitate great 

 additional building. I think everybody is agreed upon 

 that. If the Government is to be asked for money for ■ 

 additional building for the natural history collections, 



• and similar collections, it seems to me that it is not for • 

 botany that that money should be asked — that there- 

 are other branches of natural history study which are 

 in much more urgent need of proper care and repre- 

 sentation in our national collections. I mean more 

 especially stratigraphical geology and anthropology. 

 One cannot expect to have large buildings put up simul- • 

 taneously for those subjects and for botany. If money 

 is to be expended at Cromwell Road upon new build- 

 ings, it seems to me that there is greater urgency 

 for geology and anthropology than there is for botany 

 in Such buildings. 



1152. Do you regard one of the functions of the 

 museum to be that of popular instruction, and to excite • 

 a popular interest in biology ? — I should like to say that 

 in this, as in all other answers which I give to tho 

 Committee, I am expressing a personal opinion, and 

 that I hope it will not be supposed that I am speaking ■ 

 in any way officially, or representing any conclusion 

 that lias been arrived al by the Trustees. My own 

 opinion is that the word "instruction" or "education" 

 ought not to be used in connection with the Natural 

 History Museum. I think it is not its purpose to. 

 educate, in the narrow sense of the word. I would 

 rather use the word "edification." That is to say, the ■ 

 function of the Museum, so far as the public is con- 

 cerned, is to exhibit interesting and beautiful objects 

 in a way which will excite the attention and the intelli- 

 gence of the public, but that it is not its function to do 

 anything in the form of systematic or pedagogic in- 

 struction. 



1153. It was in the sense of what you call "edifica- 

 tion" that I asked vou that question. As a matter of 

 fact, a great deal is done in that way by means of your • 

 public galleries and other exhibitions ?— Tes. 



1154 Both zoological and botanical ?—Zoolo2ical, 

 palteontological, botanical, and morphological ?— There - 



