Miscellaneous, 



540 



[DECEMBER, 1910, 



phenomena more consideration, as they 

 reveal traits in plants that transcend 

 all of our stereotyped and inadequate 

 theories. The old gardener often treats 

 his plants as if he regarded them as 

 sentient beings. Perhaps we err in 

 considering them too much as machines. 



I have touched thus much on the 

 botany of our cultivated plants and their 

 origin and behaviour under domestic- 

 ation because I believe that there lies 

 here a great field for botanical and agri- 

 cultural advancement. It matters not 

 what we call this phase of botany— its 

 snccessful prosecution demands both 

 broad and intensive botanical training. 

 It requires at least a good knowledge of 

 systematic botany, of plant physiology 

 and of the theories and principles of 

 plant breeding and plant evolution. One 

 must at least know all the botany 

 possible of the plants he is immediately 

 concerned in breeding, lest he be lured 

 into needless error. Among his many 

 experiments, Mr. Oliver has made some 

 very interesting hybrids of Poa orachni- 

 fera, the Texas bluegrass and Kentucky 

 bluegrass, a circumboral plant. His cul- 

 ture soil was presumably sterilised, yet 

 mixed with his hybrids were plants of 

 Canada bluegrass, Poa eompressa. One 

 enthusiastic Mendelist was j ubilant over 

 the supposed discovery of the origin of 

 this grass and at once proposed an addi- 

 tional series of experiments. Now Poa 

 eompressa is a European species— and the 

 securing it by crossing a Texas species 

 with common bluegrass was certainly a 

 startling phenomenon. Fortunately, or 

 perhaps unfortunately, some of the other 

 supposed hybrids in the lot turned out 

 to be the other grasses, so that the source 

 of the error was evident. It points, 

 however, clearly to the necessity of the 

 scientific breeder knowing the syste- 

 matic botany at least of the group he is 

 working with. 



I well recall that when I first began to 

 study plants I promptly found about a 

 dozen species of red clover— at least they 

 were different from each other. It took 

 a long time to teach me that in plants 

 there were differences and differences, 

 some of which should be taken seriously 

 and others ignored. In general, I was 

 taught that any differences that existed 

 in closely related cultivated plants were 

 to be ignored, but in wild plants they 

 would usually have to be considered. 

 It is really very fortunate for the culti- 

 vated plants that systematic botanists 

 have not taken their differences seriously 

 otherwise we would have chaos indeed. 

 It is fortunate that the conservatism 

 which most systematic botanists exhibit 

 toward cultivated plants should not be 

 exhibited as well toward wild plants, If 



more attention had been given to the 

 cultivated plants, think what a vast host 

 of reputed wild species would have es- 

 caped the pangs of christening. There 

 used to be hope that after a while all the 

 species would be described — so that syste- 

 matic botanists could devote themselves 

 to deeper studies. But alas, it seems 

 only necessary to make fine distinctions 

 to reveal a wondrous display of so-called 

 species where none was seen before. It, 

 therefore, seems inevitable that a new 

 race of systematic botanists will have to 

 be developed to devote themselves to 

 cultivated plants — for it needs no seer to 

 predict that many generations of bota- 

 nists will be needed to define and des- 

 cribe all the minute forms in nature 

 which it is now proposed to call species. 

 The fatuity of such work, however, will 

 defeat itself. As a matter of fact, the 

 naming of a species is an interpretation 

 of facts just as our theories of variations 

 are interpretations of the same or very 

 similar facts. For both purposes we 

 need far more of the facts that can only 

 be gathered in rigid pedigreed breeding 

 experiments. Botanists have too long 

 neglected the most vital features of 

 botany to the theoretical evolutionist 

 and to the commercial breeders. We 

 have developed to a high degree nearly 

 every phase of the subject that does not 

 touch industry— and have neglected 

 those of most practical import. Our 

 hope of aiding the art of agriculture is 

 in developing its underlying sciences. 

 Too many of us have reversed this idea 

 and think to help the sciences of agricul- 

 ture by devoting more attention to its 

 art- But gardeners do things with 

 plants that are the despair of the 

 physiologist, and there always will be 

 vastly better farmers than the scientists. 



The matter of botanical instruction in 

 all schools is to a large extent a matter 

 of jf ashion— and the fashion is usually set 

 by the larger universities, where no 

 attempt is made to give botany an 

 industrial trend. There has thus been 

 developed a splendid lot of texts on 

 morphology, embtyology, systematic 

 botany, physiology, etc., but none of 

 this material has been presented in its 

 agricultural bearing, and consequently 

 the field of botany in agriculture has 

 not been clear. At the present time it 

 has neither direction nor aggressiveness. 

 What we really need to work on is the 

 science of the breeder's art and the 

 science of the gardener's art. At present, 

 the art is far in advance of the science. 

 In fields where the agricultural art was 

 not highly developed— notably pathol- 

 ogy and bacteriology— the botanist has 

 accomplished great things. Greater 



