Sept. 7, 1888.] 



SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



239 



which, such as the Celtic shorthorn ( Bos longifrons), sheep, goat, 

 and domestic hog, reverted to a feral condition, and have left their 

 remains in caves, alluvia and peat-bogs over the whole of the 

 British Isles and the Continent, These remains, along with those 

 of man in the neolithic, bronze, and iron stages of culture, mark off 

 the Prehistoric from the Pleistocene strata. There is surely no 

 reason why a cave used by palaeolithic man should be handed over 

 to the geologist, while that used by men in the Prehistoric age 

 should be taken out of his province, or why he should be asked to 

 study the lower strata only in a given section, and leave the upper 

 to be dealt wiih by the archaeologist. In these cases the ground is 

 common to geology and archaeology, and the same things, if they 

 are looked at from the standpoint of the history of the earth, 

 belong to the first, and, if from the standpoint of the history of man, 

 to the second. 



If, however, there be no break of continuity in the series of 

 events from the Pleistocene to the Prehistoric ages, still less is 

 there in those which connect the Prehistoric with the period em- 

 braced by history. The historic date of a cave or of a bed of 

 alluvium is as clearly indicated by the occurrence of a coin as the 

 geological position of a stratum is defined by an appeal to a char- 

 acteristic fossil. The gradual unfolding of the present order of 

 things from what went before compels me to recognise the fact that 

 the Tertiary period extends down to the present day. The Historic 

 period is being recorded in the strata now being formed, exactly in 

 the same way as the other divisions of the Tertiary have left their 

 mark in the crust of the earth, and history is incomplete without an 

 appeal to the geological record. In the masterly outline of the de- 

 struction of Roman civilisation in Britain the historian of the Eng- 

 lish Conquest was obliged to use the evidence, obtained from the 

 upper strata, in caves which had been used by refugees from the 

 ciiies and villas ; and among the materials for the future history 

 of this city there are, to my mind, none more striking than the 

 proof, offered by the silt in the great Roman bath, that the resort 

 of crowds had be come so utterly desolate and lonely in the ages 

 following the English Conquest as to allow of the nesting of the 

 wild duck. 



I tura now to the place of man in the geological record, a ques- 

 tion which has advanced but little since the year 1864. Then, as 

 row, his relation to the glacial strata in Britain was in dispute. It 

 must be confessed that the question is still without a satisfactory 

 answer, and that it may well be put to "a suspense account." We 

 may, however, console ourselves with the reflection that the river- 

 drift man appears in the Pleistocene strata of England, France, Spain, 

 Italy, Greece, Algiers, Egypt, Palestine, and India along with Pleis ■ 

 tocene animals, some of which were pre-glacial in Britain. He is 

 also proved to have been post-glacial in Britain, and was probably 

 living in happy, sunny, southern regions, where there was no ice, 

 and therefore no glacial period, throughout the Pleistocene age. 



It may further be remarked that man appears in the geological 

 record where he might be expected to appear. In the Eocene the 

 Primates were represented by various Lemuroids {Adapts, Necro- 

 lemtir, and others) in the Old and New Worlds. In the Meiocene 

 the Simiadse {Dryopithecus, Pliopitheais, Oreopithecus) appear in 

 Europe, while man himself appears, along with the living species 

 of Mammalia, in the Pleistocene age, both in Europe and in 

 India. 



The question of the antiquity of Man is inseparably connected 

 with the further question, " Is it possible to measure the lapse of 

 geological time in years ? " Various attempts have been made, and 

 all, as it seems to me, have ended in failure. Till we know the rate 

 of causation in the past, and until we can be sure that it has been 

 invariable and uninterrupted, I cannot see anything but failure in 

 the future. Neither the rate of the erosion of the land by sub-aerial 

 agencies, nor its destruction by oceanic currents, nor the rate of the 

 deposit of stalagmite, or of the movement of the glaciers have as yet 

 given us anything at all approaching a satisfactory date. We only 

 have a sequence of events recorded in the rocks, with intervals the 

 length of which we cannot measure. We do not know the exact 

 duration of any one geological event. Till we know both, it is surely 

 impossible to fix a date, in terms of years, either for the first appear- 

 ance of Man, or for any event outside the written record. We may 

 draw cheques upon "the bank of force" as well as "on the bank of 

 time." 



Two of my predecessors in this chair, Dr. Woodward and Pro- 

 fessor Judd, have dealt with the position of our science in relation 

 to biology and mineralogy. Professor Phillips in 1864 pointed out 

 that the later ages in geology and the earlier ages of mankind were 

 fairly united together in one large field of inquiry. In these remarks 

 I have set myself the task of examining that side of our science 

 which looks towards history. My conception of the aim and results 

 of geology is that it should present a universal history of the various 

 phases through which the earth and its inhabitants have passed in 



the various periods, until ultimately the story of the earth, and how 

 it came to be what it is, is merged in the story of man and his works 

 in the written records. Whatever the future of geology may be, it 

 certainly does not seem likely to suffer in the struggle for existence 

 in the scientific renascence of the nineteenth century. 



ABSTRACT OF THE ADDRESS TO THE BIOLOGICAL 

 SECTION OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION, 



By W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, C.M.G., M.A., B Sc, F.R.S, 

 F.L.S , President of the Section. 



As the head of one of the great national establishments of the 

 country devoted to the cultivation of systematic botany, I need 

 hardly apologise for devoting a few words to the present position of 

 that branch of the science. Of its fundamental importance I have 

 myself no matter of doubt. But as my judgment may seem in such a 

 matter not wholly free from bias, I may fortify myself with an 

 opinion which can hardly be minimised in that way. The dis- 

 tinguished chemist Professor Lothar Meyer, perhaps the most 

 brilliant worker in the field of theoretical chemistry, finds himself, 

 like the systematic botanist, obliged to defend the position of 

 descriptive science. And he draws his strongest argument from 

 biology. "The physiology of plants and animals," he tell; us, 

 " requires systematic botany and zoology, together with the anatomy 

 of the two kingdoms : each speculative science requires a rich and 

 well-ordered material, if it is not to lose itself in empty and fruit- 

 less fantasies." 



At present the outlook for systematic botany is somewhat dis- 

 couraging. France, Germany, and Austria no longer possess any- 

 thing like a school in the subject, though they still supply able and 

 distinguished workers. That these are, however, few, may be 

 judged from the fact that it is difficult to fill the place of the 

 lamented Eichler in the direction of the Botanic Garden and 

 Herbatium at Beilin. Outside our own country, Switzerland is the 

 most important seat of general systematic study, to which three 

 generations of De Candolles have devoted themselves. The most 

 active centres of work at the moment are, however, to be found 

 in our own country, in the United States, and in Russia. And the 

 reason is, in each case, no doubt the same. The enormous area 

 of the earth's surface over which each country holds sway brings 

 to them a vast amount of material which peremptorily demands 

 discussion. 



No country, however, affords such admirable facilities for work 

 in systematic botany as are now to be found in London. The 

 Linnean Society possesses the Herbarium of Linnaeus ; the Botani- 

 cal Department of the British Museum is rich in the collections of 

 the older botanists ; while at Kew we have a constantly increasing 

 assemblage of material, either the results of travel and ejpeditiens 

 or the contributions of correspondents in different parts of the 

 empire. A very large proportion of this has been worked up. But 

 I am painfully impressed with the fact that the total of our 

 available workers bears but a small proportion to the labour ready 

 to their hands. 



This is the more a matter of concern because for the few official 

 posts which are open to botanists at home or abroad a practical 

 knowledge of systematic botany is really indispensable. For 

 suitable candidates for these one naturally looks to the Universities. 

 And so far, I am sorry to say, in great measure one looks in vain. 

 It would be, no doubt, a great impulse to what is undoubtedly an 

 important branch of national scientific work if fellowships could 

 occasionally be given to men who showed some aptitude for it. 

 But these should not be mere prizes for undergraduate study, but 

 should exact some guarantee that during the tenure of the fellowship 

 the holder would seriously devote hmr=elf to some definite piece of 

 work. At present, undoubtedly, the younger generation of botanists 

 show a disposition to turn aside to those fields in which more bril- 

 liant and more immediate results can be attained. Their neglect of 

 systematic botany brings to some extent its own Nemesis. A first 

 principle of systematic botany is that a name should denote a 

 definite and ascertainable species of plant. But in physiological 

 literature you will find that the importance of this is entirely over- 

 looked. Names are employed which are either not to be found in 

 the books or they are altogether misapplied. I call to mind the 

 case of an English physiologist who wrote a highly ingenious paper 

 on the movement of water in plants. He was content to refer to 

 the plant upon which he experimented as the " bay-laurel." I ascer- 

 tained that the plant he really used was the cherry-laurel. Now, 

 the bay is truly a laurel, while the cherry-laurel is a plum. Any- 

 one repeating his experiments would therefore be led wholly astray. 

 But if proper precautions are taken to ascertain the accurate botani- 

 cal name of a plant no botanist throughout the civilised world is 

 at a loss to identify it. 



