September 27, 1888. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
297 
from bias, I may fortify myself with an opinion which can hardly be 
minimised in that way. The distinguished chemist, Prof. 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 argu¬ 
ment from biology. “ The physiology of plants and animals,” he tells 
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 fruitless 
fantasies.” No one, of course, supposes that the accumulation of plant 
specimens in herbaria is the mere outcome of a passion for accumulating. 
But to do good systematic work requires high qualities of exactitude, 
patience, and judgment. As I had occasion to show at the Linnean 
Centenary, the world is hardly sensible of the influence which the study 
of the subject has had on its affairs. The school of Jeremy Bentham 
has left an indelible mark on the social and legislative progress of our 
own time. Mill tells us that “ the proper arrangement of a code of laws 
depends on the same scientific conditions as the classifications in natural 
history ; nor could there,” he adds, “ be a better preparatory discipline 
for that important function than the principles of a natural arrange¬ 
ment, not only in the abstract, but in their actual application to the 
class of phenomena for which they were first elaborated, and which arc 
still the best sehool for learning their use.” He further tells us that 
of this Jeremy Bentham was perfectly aware, and that his “ Fragment 
on Government ” contains clear and just views on the meaning of a 
natural arrangement which reflect directly the influence of Linnaeus 
and Jussieu. Mill himself possessed a competent knowledge of systematic 
botany, and therefore was well able to judge of its intellectual value. 
For my part, I do not doubt that precisely the same qualifications of 
mind which made Jeremy Bentham a great jurist, enabled his nephew 
to attain the eminence he reached as a botanist. As a mere matter of 
mental gymnastic, taxonomic science will hold its own with any pursuit. 
And, of course, what I say of botany is no less true of other branches of 
natural history. Mr. Darwin devoted eight or nine years to the systematic 
study of the Cirripedia. “ No one,” he himself tells us, “ has a right to 
examine the question of species who has not minutely described many.” 
And Mr. Huxley has pointed out, in the admirable memoir of Mr. Darwin 
which he has prepared for the Royal Society, that “ the acquirement 
of an intimate and practical knowledge of the process of species- 
makiDg. . .” was “ of no less importance to the author of the 1 Origin of 
Species ’ than was the bearing of the Cirripede work upon the principles 
of a natural classification.” 
At present the outlook for systematic botany is somewhat discourag¬ 
ing. France, Germany, and Austria no longer possess anything 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 direc¬ 
tion of the Botanic Garden and Herbarium at Berlin. Outside our own 
country, Switzerland is the most important seat of general systematic 
study, to which three generations of De Candolles have devoted them¬ 
selves. 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 dis¬ 
cussion. 
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 Botanical Depart¬ 
ment 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 expeditions, or the contributions 
of correspondents indifferent parts of the Empire. A very large pro¬ 
portion 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 pro¬ 
portion 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 know¬ 
ledge of systematic botany is really indispensable. For suitable candi¬ 
dates 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 himself 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 brilliant 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 denotea. 
definite and ascertainable species of plant. But in physiological litera¬ 
ture you will find that the importance of this is entirely overlooked. 
Names are employed which are not to be found in the book*, 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 ascertained that the plant he- 
really used was the Cherry Laurel. Now the Bay is truly a Laurel, 
while the Cherry Laurel is a Plum. Anyone repeating his experiments 
would therefore be led wholly astray. But if proper precautions are; 
taken to ascertain the accurate botanical name of a plant, no botanist 
throughout the civilised world is at a loss to identify it. 
GEOGRAPHICAL BOTANT. 
But precision in nomenclature is only the necessary apparatus of the- 
subject. The data of systematic botany, when properly discussed, lend 
themselves to very important generalisations. Perhaps those which are 
yielded by the study of geographical distribution are of the most general 
interest. The mantle of vegetation which covers the surface of the 
earth, if only we could rightly unravel its texture, would tell us a good 
deal about geological history. The study of geographical distribution,, 
rightly handled, affords an independent line of attack upon the 
problem of the past distribution of land and sea. It would pro* 
bably never afford sufficient data for a complete independent so* 
lution of the problem ; but it must always be extremely useful as. 
a check upon other methods. Here, however, we are embarrassed 
by the enormous amount of work which has yet to be accomplished- 
And unfortunately this is not of a kind which can be indefinitely post¬ 
poned. The old terrestrial order is fast passing away before our eyes. 
Everywhere the primitive vegetation is disappearing as more and more- 
of the earth’s surface is brought into cultivation, or, at any rate denuded 
of its forests. 
(To be continued.) 
ERICA ALPORTI. 
This Heath is just now the prettiest plant in the garden, for it is a- 
mass of its rich dark crimson flowers. It does not grow so rapidly as- 
some, but it is one of the best for the rock garden where a sunny, open 
position can be given it. Peat is evidently not necessary for these 
plants ; they grow here luxuriantly in loam. Erica vagans rubra grows 
rapidly, and soon attains a large size. Some plants not a foot over them 
three years ago are now fully 3 feet in diameter. This variety is- 
flowering better with us than it has done before. Many of its spikes are 
9 inches in length, although all the flowers are not yet open. The white- 
form of this variety does not grow so strongly, but it is a grand 
companion to it, and to make large bushes only requires two or three 
plants placed together instead of planting them singly. It is to be 
deplored that beds of these beautiful Ericas are not more generally seen 
in suitable positions in pleasure grounds. A few plants of each variety- 
together soon form conspicuous clumps if the centre plants are raised by 
the aid of a few stones. E. Alporti would certainly give more trouble- 
in keeping it well furnished at the base than some other varieties, for itr 
is of upright growth and liab'e to become bare at the base, but, in spite 
of this, it is perhaps the most charming of all.—B., Liverpool. 
BRENTWOOD SHOW. 
The autumn Show and Exhibition of farmers’ and cottagers’ pro¬ 
duce was beld on Thursday last, September 20th, under most favourable- 
conditions, the weather being all that could be desired. Special prizes 
for cottagers were given by the tradesmen of Brentwood. Ploughing 
prizes by Mr. Beadel, M.P. Owing, however, to the lateness of the' 
season this competition was postponed for a fortnight. Long servitude for 
farm servants by the President, Mr. E. Ind. and Lady Guise offered similar 
prizes to domestic servants. Added to this a fire brigade competition, 
and a display of fireworks rendered additional attractions. The entries: 
numbered about 700. Messrs. Cheal & Sons of Crawley, Sussex, exhi¬ 
bited, not for competition, a fine collection of Dahlias single, Cactus* 
and Pompon, the most notable of the singles being Victoria, a dark 
crimson variety with white band down centre of each petal; Mr. Rose, 
Alphonso, Formosa, and Mr. Kennett; Pompons—Iolanthe, E. F 
Junker, Darkness, and Isabel. The same firm also exhibited a collec¬ 
tion of Apples, Pears, and Plums. In the open class for twenty-four 
Dahlias, distinct, Mr. Keith of Cornwalls, Brentwood, was first, closely 
followed by Messrs. Saltmarsh & Sons, Chelmsford. For twelve 
Dahlias, amateurs, Mr. Keith and Mr. Harris for first and second. For 
six Dahlias, Mr. Ocock, gardener to Mrs. McIntosh, Havering Park, was 
first, and Mr. Tunbridge second. For twelve Dahlias, special prizes, 
offered by Messrs. Rawlings Bros., Romford, Messrs. Keitb, Ocock, and” 
Tunbridge were placed in the order named. There was a good display 
