SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENQUIRIES. 



137 



Handbook 

 of the 

 British 

 i"lora. 



Report by 

 Sir W. J. 

 Hooker, on 

 Kew 

 Garden?, 

 in Civil 

 Service 

 Estimates 

 for 1855-56. 



Report by 

 Sir W. J. 

 Hooker, on 

 the Progress 

 of Kew 

 Gardens, 

 1859, p. 10. 



Vol. III. 

 p. 401. 



"the close study of plants."' The important bearing of 

 this consideration on botanical science in Britain can 

 scarcely be overestimated. One practical illustration 

 may be adduced. The most varied views are entertained 

 by boianists as to the limits of a species, and con- 

 sequently as to -what constitutes a duplicate. Thus, in 

 the case of the indigenous flowering plants of Britain, 

 Mr. Bentham considers them to form 1,274 species ; Dr. 

 Hooker, in his recent Flora, makes 1,473 species ; Pro- 

 fessor Babington increases the number to 1,648 species ; 

 ■whilst a botanist adoptiing the views whicli Jordan and 

 some continental authors have applied to local floras, 

 would make them tliree or four times more numerous 

 than even the last estimate. It is quite obvious that 

 these different botanists have each very different notions 

 aa to "duplicates," and that a dietribution undertaken 

 by Mr. Bentham would certainly result in the loss to 

 the herbarium of plants which Dr. Hooker would con- 

 sider good species, and the " duplicatels'' distributed 

 by Mr. Bentham or Dr. Hooker would include numerous 

 plants which would be of the utmost value in M. Jordan's 

 eyes. The two herbaria, existing, as tliey do, under 

 different directors, to a considerable extent counteract 

 these and other analogous evils. 



III. The objects of the two herbaria are fundamentally 

 different, and, in as far as they fulfil their objects, they 

 are employed for totally different purposes. The National 

 Herbarium at the British Museum was founded in 1827 

 for the use of the scientiiic botanist, while that at 

 Kew was, as Dr. Hooker says, " originally maintained 

 expressly for the use of the gardens." This was the 

 primary object for which Sir W. J. Hooker accepted the 

 jDrivate herbarium of Mr. Bentham in 1855. Before 

 that year the gardens had been fulfilling their proper 

 functions without a scientific herbarium attached to them. 

 The two editions of the " Hortus Keweneis " are the best 

 testimony to the efficiency of the gardens, and to the 

 value of the collections brought together there under 

 the -litons. No herbarium of any kind, I believe, 

 existed at the gardens during their time. The Banksian 

 Herbarium was often, and for a long time, systematically 

 used for naming the Kew plants ; and the strictly 

 scientific portion of the " Hortue Kewensis " was the 

 work of Solander, Dryander, and Brown, the successive 

 Curators of the Banksian Herbarium. Even Sir W. J. 

 Hooker, the successor of the younger Alton, who raised 

 the gardens to their present eminence, had no public 

 herbarium from the time of his appointment in 1841 

 till 1855. It is, therefore, evident that a great scientific 

 herbarium is not a necessity to the efficiency of the 

 Gardens at Kew. 



It is, however, certain that such a herbarium as Sir 

 W. J. Hooker and Dr. Hooker desired, that is, one 

 sufficient to enable the officials to name the plants in 

 the gardens, would be a most useful adjunct at Kew, 

 as it would save the great waste of time which would 

 be incurred in consulting a herbarium at a distance. 

 Inasmuch as growing plants are, to the extent that they 

 are developed, perfect, and permit thorough examination, 

 it is obvious that the single specimen herbarium, pro- 

 posed in "Nature," would meet all the requirements 

 at Kew ; and this could be kept up, as suggested by Mr. 

 Bentham, from the duplicates not required in the great 

 National Herbarium, all being accurately named before 

 being sent. 



rV. The practical difficulties in the administration 

 of two separate, and to some extent independent, her- 

 baria would be numerous and serious, and, in the course 

 of time, a condition of things similar to what at present 

 exists would result. It is needless to speak of a 

 London herbarium, consisting of single specimens of 

 each species, because such a herbarium, if practicable, 

 would, as I have already shown, be utterly worthless 

 for the purposes to which it is proposed to be applied. 

 If the London herbarium were to contain only speci- 

 mens sent by the keeper of a herbarium whose notion 

 of the science of botany was confined to the " accurate 

 determination and practical classification" of her- 

 bariam specimens, it is obvious that the palseontologist 

 would not find there the materials for prosecuting his 

 work. If, on the other hand, the London herbarium 

 were constituted to be of real use to the palaeontologist, 

 the keeper must have the power of acquiring, as oppor- 

 tunity offered, the suitable materials, and he would 

 necessarily secure collections which a future agitator 

 migbt demand to be transferred to Kew, with as per- 

 tinent reasons as those Mr. Bentham now employs. 



Y. It is not an unimportant consideration that the 

 continued separate existence of these two great her- 



baria is a great security against their destruction by 

 fire. 



YI. The expense of the two herbaria is very small. 

 I am unacquainted with the amount granted for Kew 

 herbarium, but it cannot greatly difl'er from that re- 

 quired by the National Herbarium, which amounted 

 for the financial year lately completed to £1,767. I 

 know of no way in which the country can at once 

 advance the interests of science and encourage its 

 students at a smaller cost and with more important 

 results than by maintaining in their full efficiency the 

 two botanical collections at present existing. 



It must be admitted that the formation of a single 

 great National Botanical Establishment, comprising 

 the two public herbaria now existing within a com- 

 paratively small distance from each other, is a very 

 attractive scheme, and should the Commissioners think 

 that its realisation is desirable, I submit the following 

 considerations as, in my opinion, essential : — 



I. It must form part of the National Museum of 

 Natural History. Such a museum, as far as it is an 

 exhibition of biological science, will consist of animals 

 and plants, both existing and extinct. It is absolutely 

 necessary, in the study of geology, that the plant 

 remains should not be separated from the animal 

 remains ; and, further, it is as necessary for the satis- 

 factory interpretation of the fossil plants, as well as for 

 forming a true estimate of the vegetable kingdom, that 

 the recent plants should not be separated from the 

 fossil. The sejDaration of any one department would 

 be a serious injury to all. 



II. It must represent the whole science of botany, 

 and not consist of only dried foliage and flowers, which 

 constitute a herbarium properly so called ; and, con- 

 sequently, it must be formed on the principle adopted 

 by Robert Brown, and exhibited in the Botanical 

 Department of the British Museum, and not on the 

 imperfect plan advocated by Mr. Bentham. 



III. It must be placed in the position in which it 

 will be most serviceable to the public, and most acces- 

 sible to botanists, and that place is, beyond all ques- 

 tion, London. The statistics which I submitted on the 

 occasion of my examination establish this by showing 

 the extent to which the botanical collections at the 

 British Museum are made use of. Further, it is univsr- 

 sally acknowledged that a herbarium for scientific use 

 must exist in London. The long experience of Mr. Brown 

 and Mr. Bennett in the National Herbarium made 

 them entertain and express very decided views as to 

 this necessity. My shorter experience has been long 

 enough to convince me that its removal to Kew would 

 be practically placing it out of the reach of the busy 

 men who frequently use it to the advantage of science. 

 Of course, the working botanist who devotes himself 

 exclusively to the science would follow the collections 

 wherever they went ; but the active professional man, 

 and the man of business, who devote their spare hours 

 to botany, would be deprived of the assistance necessary 

 to their work which they now obtain at the British 

 Museum. That such men do a large proportion of the 

 scientific work of the country may be shown in many 

 ways, as, for instance, by the fact that out of the 19 

 botanical memoirs contained in the last two volumes 

 of the Linnean Transactions, four are produced by pro- 

 fessional botanists, and 15 by others. 



The late Professor Henfrey, {^) as representing the 

 botanical teachers of London, Sir Charles Lyeli ('; for 

 the paleeontologists, and Dr. Falconer, (^) Mr. Bentham, (*) 

 and Dr. Hooker (*) have recorded' it as their decided 

 opinion that the interests of science require that a 

 public herbarium should exist in London. Such a 

 herbarium, even if used only by palaeontologists, must 

 be, as I have shown, as extensive as possible ; other- 

 wise, it will tend to mislead, like all other imperfect 

 sources of information. 



I would further add, in favour of London being the 

 proper site for the National Botanical collections, that 

 important collections of plants, both recent and fossil, 

 accessible to students, but not to the general public, 

 now exist and must still remain in London. These 

 are : 1st, the Linnean herbarium, containing the plants 

 described by Linnaeus ; 2nd, the great Wallichian her- 

 barium ; 3rd, the Smithian herbarium of British 

 plants, all belonging to the Linnean Society ; 4th, the 

 collection of fossil plants belonging to the Geological 

 Society ; and, 5th, the extensive public collection of 

 fossil plants in the Museum of Practical Geology. The 



(1) Ketuni 

 to House of 

 Commons, 

 No. 126, p. 7. 



(2) Return 

 to House of 

 Conimims, 

 Xo. 1L6, 



p. 10. 



(3) do. p. i). 



(4) do. p. 6. 



(5) Memo- 

 randum 

 respectinc 

 the 



Botanieal 

 collections 

 of the 

 British 

 Museum 

 and Royal 

 Gardens 

 Kew, p. 3, 

 31st Decem- 

 ber 1868. 



