[ 173 ] 



APPENDIX m. 



Docr-MEXTS AS StJPPLEMENTART EVIDENCII. 



No. 1. 



Additional observations, received fiom Mr. E. M. 

 Holmes, 17th and 19th November, 1900: — 



420. The idea of plant-types in cabmets for public 

 reference would be, in my view, an extension of that 

 vrhich is already done in the English oollection of 

 zoological spec'imens in the room behind Darwin's 

 statue, where specimens can be viewed by visitors by 

 pulling out drawers. Specimens placed on edge, and 

 mounted on card, with a transparent gelatine covering, 

 could easily be arranged in grooved drawers, but that 

 is a detail. 



430. Students of pollen or leaves, jis a rule, would 

 get more help in a botanical garden than in a her- 

 barium, where leaves cannot be detadied without in- 

 jury. 



440, 448. I have seen excellent work in fossil botany 

 done in the Jodrell Laboratory at Kew. Unless a 

 geologist be also a botanist he is hardly likely to study 

 fossil plants critioally. 



441-443. I misunderstood Lord Avebury's question. 

 The only geological museum that I have visited in 

 London is the one in Jermyn Street, which I belieived 

 was the only geological museum properly so called, the 

 collections formerly at Bloomsbury and now at South 

 Kensington being always in my hearing called the 

 Geological Department of the British Museum. 



446. My impression is that they were in the Botani- 

 cal Department when Mr. Oarruthers was the Keeper. 



450. Since my answers were given to the Ckimmittee 

 I took the plant to Kew, and it was tliere identified 

 by Sir. Burkill, as a luxuriant form of Sinapis incana. 

 There was a specimen in the herbarium there which 

 exactly miatohed my specimen. 



451. The collection consisted of Hudson's plants in 

 Forster's collection. Forstetr appears to have pur- 

 chased Hudson's plants. Hudson's house was burnt, 

 and the specimemHSiheets sihow traces of fire. 



460. No, not usually. I should not expect to find 

 at the British Museum Botanical Department at South 

 Kensington plants that I could not find at Kew, ex- 

 cept in special oollectioaiB that I know to exist in the 

 former. This is so much the case that I have given up 

 going to South Kensington except to see such special 

 plants, or occasionally to compare a British plant 

 when I have other business in that dixection. [Eevised 

 and amplifted, 19th Novemher, 1900.] 



479. I do inot think miy objections to uncor- 

 rected names on specimens of pliants were quite under- 

 stood. Supposing I wisOi to identify a seaweed that I 

 believe to be Sphacelaria cirrhosa, and I ask to see an 

 authentic specimen of that species, and I am handed 

 a sheet bearing that name on the right-hand corner of 

 the sheet, in writing which I do not know the authori- 

 tative value of (for botanists do not alw.ays sign their 

 names), and I find on the sheet half a dozen specimens, 

 Siome of which are evidently different speoies, how am 

 I to determine which of those is an authentic specimen 1 

 And of what, use is the sheet to me for the purpose of 

 identifying my plant? As a matter of fact, I found 

 Sphacelaria scoparioides on a sheet of S. cirrhosa at 

 South Kensington. 



The specimens expressing the views of different 

 botanical authorities should, in my opinion, be re- 

 presented eacih on a different sheet, and placed in a, 

 distinct cover, not on the sheet containing a definite 

 authentic specimen. The object, I think, of a collec- 

 tion of plants is to facilitate study, not to make it 

 more difficult, nor to waste' the time of the worker un- 

 necessarily. 



432. It is not so much a question of te<rminoliagy, 

 but a question of well-authenticated specimens ; not 

 the change of an old name to a new one, but the 

 identity of two or more specimens on a Siheet, and the 

 indication of which of these are rightly named, and 

 which are not, on the sheet itself, as for instance where 



3499, 



the same oodleotor has mixed two species together in 

 the same parcel. I am not advocating the erasure of 

 tlie name given by a botanical authority, but the super- 

 scriirtion of the correct name of the plant on a distinc- 

 tive label, showing what tJie i^lant really is. 



487, 490. Dr. Dickie's collection contained many type 

 specimens, and is therefore of value. iSuppos-ing, how- 

 ever, tliat he has already made a new genus of a plant 

 wliioh belongs to one already lalo^^^l. the name he has 

 given must be sunk, and the necessary change to 

 another genus should, I think, be indicated on the 

 sheet bearang that type specimen. On one occasion a 

 plantwhich I sent to him he named Bhodymenia bifida, 

 and it would occur in several collections under that 

 name, but I proved to him that it could not be a 

 Bhodymenia, but must be a Nitophyllum, on account 

 of the tetraspores being of different stmcture, and I 

 published it as Nitophyllum thysanorrhizans. In a case 

 of this kind, I think under Bhodymenia bifida there 

 should be on the cover a cross reference to Nitophyllum 

 thysanorrhizans, and the plant should be placed in the 

 genus Nitophyllum, with tJie correct name superscribed 

 over the name given by Dr. Dickie. 



In the Journal of Botany, for October, 1900, page 

 377, No. 34, you will find a correction bv Mr. Batters 

 of one of Dr. Dickie's specimens at the Botanical De- 

 partment, South Kensington. Dr. Dickie had labelled 

 it Schizymenia Dubyi, but the plant is Halymenia 

 latifolia. 



No. 2. 



Memorandum received on 17th November, from Mr. 

 Carruthers. 



In answer to Sir John Kirk's question as to the re- 

 moval of the _Kew collections to the British Museum 

 (No. 581) I said, "It would be impossible to accommo- 

 date them m the present room." In saying this I was 

 thinking only of the floor space in the room. iSome 

 years ago I had to face the congested state of cabinets 

 m which some natural orders were preserved, and I saw 

 that when the time came to provide additional cabinets 

 tile needed space could be secured bv erecting a light 

 gaieiy above the hetb'airium, and removing asMmuch^as 

 was needed of tllie iatlh-and-plaster wail which rises froan 

 the top of^ the heUbarium to the roof. This additional 

 space, which could be easily increased by carrying the 

 gallery into the public room, would be sufficient, I believe, 

 to accommodate the herbarium cabinets of the Kew col- 

 lections. The double series of lights— in the walls and in 

 the roof— would prevent loss of light below the galleries. 

 The cost of such a gallery and the necessary alterations 

 would be comparatively small. The_removal of the col- 

 lections need not take place till the alterations have 

 been made, and the removal could then be so managed 

 that the collections would not have to be closed to men 

 of science for more than a few days. When the her- 

 barium was removed from Bloomsburv to the Natural 

 History Museum it was closed for a week only. The 

 thorough incorporation of the two herbaria would be a; 

 work of time, but with the present staff of the two her- 

 baria this could be accomplished within a reasonable 

 period. The cabinets from Kew would, so far as needed, 

 be returned as they were emptied, with a suitable her- 

 barium for the use of the Gardens. 



(Signed) William Caeruthees. 

 17th November, 1900. 



No. 3. 



Copy of a letter from the Assistant Controller, H.M. 

 Stationery Office, in reply to an enquiry as to the amount 

 annually expended .*or binding at Kew. 

 L 2895/00. 



Stationery Office, 



20t1i November, 1900. 

 Sir, 



In reply to your l^er dated the 5th instant I am de- 

 sired by the Controller to inform you that the average 



Z 



Appendix 

 III. 



