io6 
Botanical Bolshevism 
arises “ because the teaching is mainly in the hands of men who are 
primarily morphologists.” Before applying such a gross assertion 
generally, the signatories should have taken steps to be better 
informed than they appear to be. They refer to the attempt some 
20 years ago to separate plant physiology from morphology, and to 
combine it with animal physiology in a distinct section of the 
British Association. Younger botanists are reminded that it was 
the morphologists who revolted : and it was a morphologist who 
proposed the motion that the study of plants should be maintained 
as one subject. Does it not then seem inconsistent for the 
signatories now to assert that the faults they allege lie with the 
morphologists? 
Should not the signatories consider whether the cause of their 
dissatisfaction does not really lie in their own presentment of that 
functional branch which they put in antithesis to its natural 
foundations in form ? 1 make no assertion on so delicate a point. 
But I recommend that the signatories should “ diligently try and 
examine themselves” before they take action. They would do well 
instead of dwelling on the alleged deficiencies to seek inspiration 
in the converse picture of that morphological success which they 
admit. The signatories are complimentary to the British School 
of Morphologists. But I, who personally have seen more of its 
history than any of the signatories, deny that it “ derived its 
inspiration and opportunity from the revival of the study of fossil 
plants.” The true history is written in the lives of more than one 
of our leading Botanists. They show that the thesis should be 
inverted, viz., “ that the study of fossil plants received its inspiration 
from the revival of morphology, which was already well advanced.” 
It was based on Hofmeister, Sachs and de Bary, whose work 
prepared the way for the great evolutionary outburst in Britain. 
Its existence and its success were rooted in the enthusiastic interest 
of its votaries. Many of them entered Botany as an obsession 
rather than a profession. Their enthusiasm caught the generous 
student-mind, and this may in some measure account for the result 
that the signatories state as existing in some centres, and deplore. 
I would advise them to learn from this success how a like success in 
physiology may be attained. That end should be pursued by a 
natural fostering of interest, not by aggressive or repressive 
measures. 
But instead of such a natural method as this the signatories 
appear to advocate immediate Botanical Bolshevism. They 
