108 



DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON BOTANICAL WORK : 



Sir W. T. 



Thiselton- 



Dijer, 



K.C.M.G., 

 F.E.S. 



29 Nov. 1900, 



Museum -n-ith regard to Madagascar, the situaticn only 

 reproduces itself elsewhere. 



1353. {Mr. Spring Bice.) I only put it as a hypothetical 

 case, the first that came into my head ? — If Professor Bal- 

 four started great activity in Edinburgh we migltt desire 

 to suppress him. 



1354. (Professor Half our.) As a case very simii-ir to 

 what Mr. Spring Rice has put to you, has not it aiready 

 occurred in connection with the tropical Africa flora that 

 the British Mrusemm have got the Milanji plants, which 

 they have published, and workers at Kew doing the 

 tropical Africa flora have to go to the British Museum 

 and spend a great deal of time there ? — I tliink that is so. 



1355. (Mr. Spring Bice.) I believe we have it in evi- 

 dence that there is somebody now working at the British 

 Museum collection of Central and West African flora, 

 and I believe under your direction some work is being 

 done on the flora of the same part of the world at Kew? 

 - — ■! think it is very probable. 



1356. As a matter of fact, you have been working at 

 the flora of West Africa? — ^We have been working at the 

 flora of tropical Africa for the Jast 30 years. The British 

 Museum certainly does show a disposition, if we take up 

 a subject, to strike in and make a little show, but you 

 can hardly wonder at that. 



1357. There is only one other point I should like to ask 

 you a question about. In paragraph 7 of your covering 

 letter you refer to the recommendations of what is known 

 as the Devonshire Co^mmission, and you say that a kind 

 of compromise was suggested which was not readily in- 

 telligible, and was certainly unworkable. Have you con- 

 sidered whether, taking things as they are, any amend- 

 ment of those suggestions couJd be made which would be 

 workable? — No. What they suggested was that collec- 

 tions were to be arranged geographically at South Ken- 

 sington and systematically at Kew. [This was ap- 

 parently due to a suggestion made by Sir Joseph 

 Hooker.l I do no^t see that any compromise is possible 

 at all. Tou must have either independent autonomy or 

 fusion — 'there is nothing .between. 



1358. That 'Commdssion made three recommendations, 

 if I may recall them to your memory. The first is the 

 one to which you have referred with regard to geographical 

 distribution on the one hand and systematic botany on 

 the other. The second is as follows : " That all collec- 

 tions of recent plants made hj Government expeditions 

 be, in the first instance, sent to Kew, to be there worked 

 out and distributed, a set being reserved for the British 

 Museum, and that all collections of fossil plants made 

 hy Government expeditions be sent to the British 

 Museum " ? — I did not refer to these two points, because 

 I fancy they have been generally accepted. We had a 

 few fragmentary collections of fossil plants at Kew, 

 and we sent them off to the British Museum promptly. 



1359. Toil apnear to have practically no fossil plants 

 now at Kew ? — ^No. 



1360. Do you feel the want of a collection of fossil 

 plants for the work at Kew? — No, and I do not think 

 that the Botanical Department ought to have fossil plants 

 either. It is a very much debated question, but I have 

 made up my mind that the method of pailfeeontology 

 requires that a fossil should be in the hands of experts 

 and not in the hands of either zoologists or botanists. I 

 believe that has been) carried out now at South Kensington. 



1361. Referring to the work of your own department 

 you have not found that researchers coming to you have 

 complained of your staff or the absence of a collection of 

 fossil plants ? — ^No. 



1362. The third recommendation of the Devonshire 

 Commission was : " That opportunities for the pursuit of 

 investigations in physiological botany shouJd be afforded 

 in the Royal Gardens at Kew." That I believe is now 

 done by the Jodrell Laboratory, is it not ? — ^Tou will find 

 a statement a^bout the Jodrell Laboratory in my memo- 

 randum. 



1363. I just want to get it from you that you consider 

 that recommendation has been met by the Jodrell Labora- 

 tory ? — ^It was, no thanks to the Governmenit. That was 

 done by private munificence. 



1364. But as a matter of fact that has been done ? — 

 Tes. I am afraid there oaght to be more done in that 

 direction. I should like also to point out that the keeper 

 of the .Todreli Laboratory is not jiaid anv salary. I do 

 not think the Government has assisted Kew in carrying 

 out that recommendation. 



1365. It is not a question of giving credit to anybody. 

 I wanted to get from you the facts on that point? — As 

 yoTj appear to view the fact of the recommendations of the 



Committee having been carried out with satisfaction I 

 wish to ear-mark it with the statement that it is not due 

 to the Government. 



1366. (Chairman.) With regard to the fossil plants, it 

 has been represented to us by more than one person that 

 the botanical interest in fossil plants is greater than the 

 geoiogical interest— they are more valuable to the botanist 

 than to the geologist, and it has been also represented 

 that in the interests of botanical research it would be an 

 advantage if the fossil plants were not, as at present, in 

 the British Museum., but at Kew, where they could be 

 studied in close proximity to the living plants. It was 

 represented that for the study of fossil plants the im- 

 mediate recourse to living plants was of greater advantage 

 than the recourse to dry herbarium specimens. I sup- 

 pose fossU plants could be accommodated at Kew? — Yes. 

 There are 300 acres of land, and you could accommodate 

 anything you please. It is an exceedingly complicated 

 and interesting subject, that of the determination of fossil 

 remains. I am less and less inclined to dogmatise on 

 these points. I think every problem must be taken on 

 its own merits. In the case of palaeozoic fossils, which 

 have to be worked out mainly from study of histologicai 

 detail, I have no doubt that an immediate reference to 

 fresh material is of importance, and herbarium material 

 is practically useless. When you go to the other end, 

 to the more recent plants, I think it is probable that the 

 use of herbarium material, the convenience of being able 

 to go to a cabinet and immediately get cut a large series 

 of leaf forms, where you have leaf impressions, and so oon, 

 is probabiy the correct way of doing the work. As I say, 

 I am not prepared to dogmatise about it. The argument 

 that experience has impressed upon me is this, that the 

 treatment of fossils does require its own special technique, 

 and therefore there ought to be a palseontological depaart- 

 ment, neither zoological nor botanical. The mode of 

 developing fossils and preparing collections, and the whole 

 technique of the subject is quite separate. I should be 

 always afraid that if a collection of fossils were placed 

 under the charge of a botanist justice might not be done 

 to them. I think the pal£©ontological departm^ent of the 

 British Museum, so far as I know, is one of its striking 

 successes, and that is due to the fact that they have trained 

 experts who know how to treat the fossils and extract 

 from them the information which they contain. I think 

 that is a very important thing. 



1367. I suppose it would be possible if the fossil plants 

 were separated from the fossil animals to have an expert 

 in palseo-botany. He would have to be an expert sui 

 generis. The method of treating fossil plants is different 

 fro.m treating fo.ssil animals ? — ^It is a principle of ad- 

 ministration that the more you split a thing up the lesa 

 well it is done. If you have a department you can have 

 men better paid and better placed. If you break the 

 thing up into driblets, then you come down to one man, 

 and there is always a difiiculty. 



1368. Is it not the case with regard to your argument't 

 as to there being a special technique for palseontology that 

 this is met by the argument that the technique of palseo- 

 botany is quite distinct from the technique of palsso- 

 zoology? — I do not think it is. If you have a block of 

 sandstone with a fossil in it, it does not matter twopence 

 whether it is an animal or a plant. An experienced man 

 will develop that fossil by methods of his own. 



1369. (Professor Balfour.) There is one question on the 

 administration which I should like to ask you. When 

 your assistants lay in the plants, if they think they are 

 new, they just put them into their genus? — I have ex- 

 plained in my memorandum, that we do not attempt to 

 carry determination down beyond generic rank. 



1370. Do you allow any attempt at research to your 

 staff? — Yes, I think the work of an establishment like 

 mine, especially when men are driven pretty hard as 

 they are under my direction, is monotonous, and calculated 

 to deaden intellectual activity, and therefore part of my 

 system is to allow a portion of each day for them to 

 do scientific work in the institution independently, in 

 order to prevent their " drying up." 



1371. A great part of that work consists in the ex- 

 amination and description of new species, does it not? — 

 Yes ; but that is more interesting than the mechanical 

 work of putting things in their place. 



1372. I suppose that work when it is done is p'lblished 

 through the transactions of societies or journals? — Tes. 



1373. Do you think it would be an advantage to have 

 that all published from Kew as ofiicial work under your 

 direction? — I do not believe in crystallising things too 

 much. I think if a man works out a little paper half the 

 fun is in publishing it wher^he likes. 



Adjourned. 



