THE 
HEW PHYTOhOGIST. 
Vol. V., No. 8. 
October 31 ST, 1906 . 
BOTANY IN ENGLAND”: A Reply. 
N the September number of the Journal of Botany, Mr. James 
Britten deals at considerable length with the portion of my 
Presidential Address to the Botanical Section at the recent Meeting 
of the British Association at York, which was printed under the 
title “ Botany in England.” 
As Mr. Britten’s criticism seemed based on a misapprehension 
of the drift of my remarks, and as it was printed in a medium often 
consulted by Systematic Botanists, I naturally sent a reply which I 
hoped might be inserted in a forthcoming number of the same 
Journal. In his capacity of Editor, however, Mr. Britten did not 
see his way to insert my reply in the form in which I had w r ritten 
it. As I was unable, in my turn, to fall in with the restrictions 
imposed by Mr. Britten, hospitality for a rejoinder had to be sought 
elsewhere. It is under these circumstances that the present note 
appears in the pages of the New Phytologist. 
Whilst welcoming any criticisms that Mr. Britten may think 
fit to make, I may, perhaps, be permitted to express the hope that 
the tone which animates his recent utterance may find no permanent 
place in botanical controversy. When one’s shortcomings are so 
rudely exposed, there is the temptation to emulate one’s critic and 
take reprisals. 
In my York Address I endeavoured to shew that in the general 
advance of Botany in this country during the last twenty-five years 
our great centres of Systematic Botany had become encased, as it 
were, in a sort of water-tight compartment, and this from causes 
inherent in their organisation. I do not think it can be seriously 
questioned that the Herbaria pursue their work apart. One has 
only to turn to the utterances of men so well qualified to speak for 
Systematic Botany as Sir George King and Sir William Thiselton- 
Dyer. The former speaks of its neglect and decadence 1 ; the latter 
1 Presidential Address to Section K. Brit. Assoc., Dover, 1899, 
p. 16. 
