Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

Barbed Wire Borders and Partitions in South

Asia 1st Edition Jayita Sengupta (Editor)

https://ebookgate.com/product/barbed-wire-borders-
and-partitions-in-south-asia-1st-edition-jayita-
sengupta-editor/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Barbed Wire An Ecology of Modernity 1st Edition Reviel

Netz

https://ebookgate.com/product/barbed-wire-an-ecology-of-
modernity-1st-edition-reviel-netz/

The Perfect Fence Untangling the Meanings of Barbed

Wire Lyn Ellen Bennett

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-perfect-fence-untangling-the-
meanings-of-barbed-wire-lyn-ellen-bennett/

The Future Life of Trauma Partitions Borders Repetition

1st Edition Jennifer Yusin

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-future-life-of-trauma-
partitions-borders-repetition-1st-edition-jennifer-yusin/

Regionalism in South Asia Negotiating Cooperation

Institutional Structures Routledge Contemporary South
Asia 1st Edition Kishore Dash

https://ebookgate.com/product/regionalism-in-south-asia-
negotiating-cooperation-institutional-structures-routledge-
contemporary-south-asia-1st-edition-kishore-dash/
City in South Asia Asia s Transformations 1st Edition
Jame Heitzmann

https://ebookgate.com/product/city-in-south-asia-asia-s-
transformations-1st-edition-jame-heitzmann/

Globalisation and Employment in South Asia The South

Asian Experience First Edition Mayumi Murayama

https://ebookgate.com/product/globalisation-and-employment-in-
south-asia-the-south-asian-experience-first-edition-mayumi-
murayama/

Religion And Violence In South Asia 1st Edition John R.

Hinnells

https://ebookgate.com/product/religion-and-violence-in-south-
asia-1st-edition-john-r-hinnells/

Military Manpower Armies and Warfare in South Asia 1st

Edition Kaushik Roy

https://ebookgate.com/product/military-manpower-armies-and-
warfare-in-south-asia-1st-edition-kaushik-roy/

Unconventional Warfare in South Asia Shadow Warriors

and Counterinsurgency Scott Gates

https://ebookgate.com/product/unconventional-warfare-in-south-
asia-shadow-warriors-and-counterinsurgency-scott-gates/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Notes.
172. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 3, 35, 1886.

173. Ibid., 4, 9, 1888. Both of these papers are reprinted in Ann. Rept.
Smithsonian Inst., 1897, U. S. Nat. Mus., Pt. 2, pp. 357–466, 1901.

174. Louis Agassiz: his Life and Correspondence, by Elizabeth Carey Agassiz,
p. 145, 1885.

175. List of North American Land Mammals in the United States National
Museum, 1911. Bull. 79, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1912.

176. Birds of North and Middle America, Bull. 50, parts I-VII, U. S. Nat. Mus.,
1901–1916.

177. Report U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1898, pp. 153–1270, 1900.

178. Bull. 34, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1889.

179. Bull. 47, parts I-IV, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1896–1900.

180. J. Loeb, The Organism as a Whole, p. 126, 1916.

181. The Germ-cell Cycle in Animals, 1914.

182. The Cell in Development and Inheritance, 1896; second edition, 1900.

183. Morgan, T. H. A critique of the theory of evolution, p. 32, 1916.

 XIII
THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTANY SINCE
1818

By GEORGE L. GOODALE

“Our Botany, it is true, has been extensively and successfully investigated, but
this field is still rich, and rewards every new research with some interesting
discovery.”

Such are the words with which the sagacious and far-sighted founder
of the American Journal of Science and Arts, in his general
introduction to the first volume, alludes to the study of plants. It is
plain that the editor, embarking on this new enterprise, appreciated
the attractions of this inviting field and sympathetically recognized
the good work which was being done in it. It is not surprising,
therefore, to find that he welcomed to the pages of his initial number
contributions to botany.
Early Botanical Works.—The collections of dried and living North
American plants, which had been carried from time to time to
botanists in Europe, had been eagerly studied, and the results had
been published in accessible treatises. Besides these general
treatises, there had been issued certain works, wholly devoted to the
American Flora. Among these latter may be mentioned Pursh’s
“Flora” (1814) and Nuttall’s “Genera” (1818). There were also a few
works which were rather popular in their character, such as Amos
Eaton’s “Manual of Botany for North America” (1817), and Bigelow’s
“Collection of the Plants of Boston and environs” (1814). These
handbooks were convenient, and possessed the charm of not being
exhaustive; consequently a botanist, whether professional or
amateur, was stimulated to feel that he had a good chance of
enriching the list of species and adding to the next edition.
 The Early Years of Botany in the Journal.
At that time, the botanists had no journal in this country devoted
to their science. Here and there they found opportunity for
publishing their discoveries in some medical periodical or in a local
newspaper. Hence American botanists availed themselves of the
welcome extended by Silliman to botanical contributors to place
their results on record in a magazine devoted to science in its wide
sense. Specialization and subdivision of science had not then begun
to dissociate allied subjects, and, consequently, botanists felt that
they would be at home in this journal conducted by a chemist.
Botanists responded promptly to this invitation with interesting
contributions.
It is well to remember that the appliances at the command of
naturalists at the date when the Journal began its service, were
imperfect and inadequate. The botanist did not possess a convenient
achromatic microscope, and he was not in possession of the chemical
aids now deemed necessary in even the simplest research. Hence,
attention was given almost wholly to such matters as the forms of
plants and the more obvious phenomena of plant-life. In view of the
poverty of instrumental aids in research, the results attained must be
regarded as surprising.
In the very first volume of the Journal, bearing the date of 1818,
there are descriptions of four new genera and of four new species of
plants; certainly a large share to give to systematic botany. Besides
these articles, there are some instructive notes concerning a few
plants, which up to that time had been imperfectly understood.
There are four Floral Calendars which give details in regard to the
blossoming and the fruiting of plants in limited districts, a botanical
subject of some importance but likely to become tedious in the long
run. Just here, the skill of the editor in limiting undesirable
contributions is shown by his tactful remark designed to soothe the
feelings of a prolix writer whose too long list of plants in a floral
calendar he had editorially cut down to reasonable limits. The editor
remarks, “such extended observations are desirable, but it may not
always be convenient to insert very voluminous details of daily floral
occurrence.” It is convenient to consider by themselves some of the
botanical contributions published in the first series of volumes of the
Journal during a period of twenty years, the period before Asa Gray
became actively and constantly associated with the Journal.
In systematic and geographical botany one finds communications
from Douglass and Torrey (4, 56, 1822) on the plants of what was
then the Northwest; Lewis C. Beck (10, 257, 1826; 11, 167, 1826; 14,
112, 1828) contributed valuable papers on the botany of Illinois and
Missouri; there is a literal translation by Dr. Ruschenberger (19, 63,
299, 1831; 20, 248, 1831; 23, 78, 250, 1833) of a very long list of the
plants of Chili; Wolle and Huebener (37, 310, 1839) gave an
annotated catalogue of botanical specimens collected in
Pennsylvania; Tuckerman (45, 27, 1843) presented communications
in regard to numerous species which he had examined critically;
Darlington (41, 365, 1841) published his lecture on grasses; Asa Gray
(40, 1, 1841) gave an instructive account of European herbaria
visited by him, and he contributed also a charming account (42, 1,
1842) of a botanical journey to the mountains of North Carolina. The
most extensive series of botanical communication at this time was
the Caricography by Professor Dewey of Williams College, presented
in many numbers of the Journal; the first of these in 7, pp. 264–278,
1824. There were also descriptions of certain new genera, and
species, and critical studies in synonyms.
Cryptogamic botany is represented in the first series of volumes of
the Journal by L. C. Beck’s (15, 287, 1829) study of ferns and mosses,
by Bailey’s (35, 113, 1839) histology of the vascular system of ferns,
by Fries’ Systema mycologicum (12, 235, 1829), and by De
Schweinitz (9, 397, 1825) and Halsey, who had in hand a
cryptogamic manual. There are two important papers by Alexander
Braun, translated by Dr. George Engelmann, one on the Equisetaceæ
of North America (46, 81, 1844) and the other on the Characeæ (46,
92, 1844).
Vegetable paleontology had begun to attract attention in many
places in this country, and therefore the translated contributions by
Brongniart on fossil plants were given space in the Journal. Plant-
physiology received a good share of attention either in short notices
or in longer articles. Such titles appear as, the respiration of plants,
the circulation of sap, the excrementitious matter thrown off by
plants, the effects of certain gases and poisons on plants, and the
relations of plants to different colored light. One of the most
important of the notes is that in which is described the discovery by
Robert Brown (19, 393, 1831) of the constant movement of minute
particles suspended in a liquid, first detected by him in the fovilla of
pollen grains, and now known as the Brownian (or Brunonian)
movement. The heading under which this note appears is of interest,
“The motion of living particles in all kinds of matter.”
One side of botany touches agriculture and economics. That side
was represented even in the first volume of the Journal by a study of
“the comparative quantity of nutritious matter which may be
obtained from an acre of land when cultivated with potatoes or
wheat.” Succeeding volumes in this series likewise present phases
which are of special interest regarded from the point of view of
economics; for example, those which treat of rotation of crops and of
enriching the soil. Probably the economic paper which may be
regarded as the most important, in fact epoch-making, is the full
account of the invention by Appert of a method for preserving food
indefinitely (13, 163, 1828). We all know that Appert’s process has
revolutionized the preservation of foods, and in its modern
modification underlies the vast industry of canned fruits, vegetables
and so on. There are suggestions, also, as to the utilization of new
foods, or of old foods in a new way, which resemble the suggestions
made in these days of food conservation. For example, it is shown
that flour can be made from leguminous seeds by steaming and
subsequent drying, and pulverizing. There are excellent hints as to
the best ways of preparing and using potatoes, and also for
preserving them underground, where they will remain good for a
year or two. It is shown that potato flour can be made into excellent
bread. Another method of making bread, namely from wood, is
described, but it does not seem quite so practicable. There are
interesting notes on the sugar-beet as a source of sugar, and here
appears one of the earliest accounts of the Assam tea-plant, which
was destined to revolutionize the tea industry throughout the world.
Cordage and textile fibers of bark and of wood should be utilized in
the manufacture of paper. In fact one comes upon many such
surprises in economic botany as the earlier volumes of the Journal
are carefully examined.
 Early numbers of the Journal present with sufficient fullness
accounts of the remarkable discovery by Daguerre and others of a
process for taking pictures by light, on a silver plate or upon paper
(37, 374, 1839; 38, 97, 1840, etc.). Before many years passed, the
Journal had occasion to show that these novel photographic
delineations could be made useful in the investigation of problems in
botany. In the pages of the Journal it would be easily possible to
trace the development of this art in its relations to natural history.
Silliman possessed great sagacity in selecting for his enterprise all
the novelties which promised to be of service in the advancement of
science. In 1825 (9, 263) the Journal republished from the
Edinburgh Journal of Science an essay by Dr. (afterwards Sir)
William Jackson Hooker, on American Botany. In this essay the
author states that “the various scientific Journals” which “are
published in America, contain many memoirs upon the indigenous
plants. Among the first of these in point of value, and we think also
the first with regard to time, we must name Silliman’s Journal of
Science.” The author enumerates some of the contributors to the
Journal and the titles of their papers.
It has been a useful practice of the Journal, almost from the first,
to transfer to its pages memoirs which would otherwise be likely to
escape the notice of the majority of American botanists. The book
notices and the longer book reviews covered so wide a field that they
placed the readers of the Journal in touch with nearly all of the
current botanical literature both here and abroad. These critical
notices did much towards the symmetrical development of botany in
the United States. And as we shall now see, the Journal notices and
reviews in the hands of Asa Gray continued to be one of the most
important factors in the advancement of American botany.
 Asa Gray and the Journal.
In 1834 there appears in the Journal (25, 346) a “Sketch of the
Mineralogy of a portion of Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties, New
York, by J. B. Crawe of Watertown and A. Gray of Utica, New York.”
This appears to be the first mention in the Journal of the name of Dr.
Asa Gray, who, shortly after that date, became thoroughly identified
with its botanical interests. In the early part of his career both before
and immediately after graduating in medicine, Gray gave much
attention to the different branches of natural history in its wide
sense. He not only studied but taught “chemistry, geology,
mineralogy, and botany,” the latter branch being the one to which he
devoted most of his attention. Among his early guides in the pursuit
of botany may be mentioned Dr. Hadley, “who had learned some
botany from Dr. Ives of New Haven,” and Dr. Lewis C. Beck of
Albany, author of Botany of the United States North of Virginia. At
that period he made the acquaintance of Dr. John Torrey of New
York, with whom he later became associated in most important
descriptive work. During the years between his graduation in
medicine and 1842, the year when he came to Harvard College, his
activities were diverse and intense; so that his preparation for his
distinguished career was very broad and thorough. His first visit to
Europe, in 1838, brought him into personal relations with a large
number of the botanists of Great Britain and the Continent. This
extensive acquaintance, added to his broad training, enabled him
even from the outset to exert a profound influence upon the progress
of his favorite science. He made the Journal tributary to this
development. His name first appears as associate editor in 1853, but
there are articles in the Journal from his pen which bear an earlier
date. The first of these early botanical papers is the following: “A
Translation of a memoir entitled ‘Beiträge zur Lehre von der
Befruchtung der Pflanzen,’ (contributions to the doctrine of the
impregnation of plants, by A. J. C. Corda:) with prefatory remarks on
the progress of discovery relative to vegetable fecundation; by Asa
Gray, M. D.” (31, 308, 1837). Dr. Gray says that he made the
translation from the German for his own private use, but thinking
that it might be interesting to the Lyceum, he brought it before the
Society, with “a cursory account of the progress of discovery
respecting the fecundation of flowering plants, for the purpose of
rendering the memoir more generally intelligible to those who are
not particularly conversant with the present state of botanical
science.” The translation occupies six pages of the Journal, while the
prefatory remarks fill nine pages. The prefatory remarks constitute
an exhaustive essay on the subject, embodied in attractive and
perfectly clear language. The translator shows complete familiarity
with the matter in hand and gives an adequate account of all the
work done on the subject up to the date of M. Corda’s paper. A
second important paper by him near this period is his review of “A
Natural System of Botany: or a systematic view of the Organization,
Natural Affinities, and Geographical Distribution of the whole
Vegetable Kingdom; together with the use of the more important
species in Medicine, the Arts, and rural and domestic economy, by
John Lindley. Second edition, with numerous additions and
corrections, and a complete list of genera and their synonyms.
London: 1836” (32, 292, 1837). A very brief notice of this work in the
first part of the volume for 1837 closes with the words, “A more
extended notice of the work may be expected in the ensuing number
of the Journal.” The extended notice proved to be a critical study of
the work, signed by the initials A. G. which later became so familiar
to readers of the Journal. Citation of a few of its sentences will
indicate the strong and quiet manner in which Dr. Gray, even at the
outset, wrote his notices of books. In speaking of the second edition
of Professor Lindley’s work, he says:
 “It is not necessary to state that a treatise of this kind was greatly needed, or to
allude to the peculiar qualifications of the learned and industrious author for the
accomplishment of the task, or the high estimation in which the work is held in
Europe. But we may properly offer our testimony respecting the great and
favorable influence which it has exerted upon the progress of botanical science in
the United States. Great as the merits of the work undoubtedly are, we must
nevertheless be excused from adopting the terms of extravagant and sometimes
equivocal eulogy employed by a popular author, who gravely informs his readers
that no book, since printed Bibles were first sold in Paris by Dr. Faustus, ever
excited so much surprise and wonder as did Dr. Torrey’s edition of Lindley’s
Introduction to the Natural System of Botany. Now we can hardly believe that
either the author or the American editor of the work referred to was ever in danger,
as was honest Dr. Faustus, of being burned for witchcraft, neither do we find
anything in its pages calculated to produce such astonishing effects, except,
perhaps, upon the minds of those botanists, if such they may be called, who had
never dreamed of any important changes in the science since the appearance of
good Dr. Turton’s translation of the Species Plantarum, and who speak of Jussieu
as a writer who has greatly improved the natural orders of Linnæus.”

In the Journal for 1840 there is a large group of unsigned book

reviews under the heading, “Brief notices of recent Botanical works,
especially those most interesting to the student of North American
Botany.” The first of these short reviews deals with the second
section of Part VII of De Candolle’s “Prodromus.” In 1847 the
consideration of the “Prodromus” is resumed by the same author and
the initials of A. G. are appended. This indicates that Dr. Gray was
probably the writer of some of the unsigned book reviews which had
appeared in the Journal between 1837 and 1840. Doubtless Silliman
availed himself of the assistance of his associates, Eli Ives and others,
in New Haven, in the examination of current botanical literature,
and it is extremely probable that he early secured help from young
Dr. Gray, who had shown himself to be a keen critic as well as a
pleasing writer. The notices of botanical works from 1840 bear marks
of having been from the same hand. They cover an extremely wide
range of subjects. While they are good-tempered they are critical,
and they had much to do with the development of botany, in this
country, along safe lines.
Gray as Editor.—Gray’s name as associate editor of the Journal
appears in 1853. He had been a welcome contributor, as we have
seen, for many years. His influence upon the progress of botany in
the United States was largely due to his connection with the Journal.
His reviews extended over a very wide range, and supplemented to a
remarkable degree his other educational work. It must be permitted
to allude here to his sagacity as a writer of educational treatises. In
his first elementary text-book, published in 1836, he expressed
wholly original views in regard to certain phases of structure and
function in plants, which became generally adopted at a later date.
His Manual of Botany was constructed, and subsequent editions
were kept, on a plan which made no appeal to those who wanted to
work on lines of least resistance; in fact he had no patience with
those who desired merely to ascertain the name of a plant. In the
Journal he emphasizes the desirability of learning all the affinities of
the plant under consideration. At a later period, when entirely new
chapters had been opened in the life of plants, he sought by his
contributions in the Journal to interest students in this wider
outlook.
Professor C. S. Sargent has selected with good judgment some of
the more important scientific papers by Professor Gray and has
republished them in a convenient form.[184] Many of these papers
were contributed to the Journal in the form of reviews. These reviews
touch nearly every branch of the science of botany. As Sargent justly
says, “Many of the reviews are filled with original and suggestive
observations, and taken together, furnish the best account of the
development of botanical literature during the last fifty years that
has yet been written.” In these longer reviews in the Journal, Gray
was wont to take a book under review as affording an opportunity to
illustrate some important subject, and many of the reviews are
crowded with his expositions. For example, in his examination of
vonMohl’s “Vegetable Cell” (15, 451, 1853) he takes up the whole
subject of microscopic structure, so far as it was then understood,
and he points out the probable errors of some of Mohl’s
contemporaries, showing what and how great were Mohl’s own
contributions to histology. Such a review is a landmark in the
science. The physiology of the cell and the nutrition of the plant were
favorite topics with Professor Gray, and he brought much of his
knowledge in regard to them into such a review as that of
Boussingault (25, 120, 1858) on the “Influence of nitrates on the
production of vegetable matter.”
As a systematic botanist, Gray was naturally much interested in
the vexed question of nomenclature of plants. One of his most
important communications to the Journal is his review, in the
volume for 1883 (26, 417), of DeCandolle’s work on the subject. He
deals with this strictly technical matter much as he did in a
contribution to the Journal which he made in 1868 (46, 63). In both
of these papers he states with clearness the general features of the
code of nomenclature. He says explicitly that the code does not
make, but rather declares, the common law of botanists. The
treatment of the subject at his hands would rightly impress a general
reader as showing a strong desire to have common sense applied to
doubtful cases, instead of insisting on inflexible rules. For this
reason, his rule of practice was not always acceptable to those who
were anxious to secure conformity to arbitrary rules at whatever cost.
As he said in a paper published in the Journal in 1847 (3, 302), “The
difficulty of a reform increases with its necessity. It is much easier to
state the evils than to relieve them; and the well-meant endeavors
that have recently been made to this end, are, some of them, likely, if
adopted, to make confusion worse confounded.” This feeling led him
to be very conservative in the matter of reform in nomenclature.
This subject of botanical nomenclature illustrates a method
frequently employed by Professor Gray to elucidate a difficult matter.
He would find in the treatise under review a text, or texts, on which
he would build a treatise of his own, and in this way he made clear
his own views relative to most of the important phases of botany.
When he faced controverted matters, his attitude still remained
judicial. While he was tolerant of opinions which clashed with his
own, he was always severe upon charlatanism and impatient of
inaccuracy. The pages of the Journal contain many severe criticisms
at his hands, but an unprejudiced person would say that the severity
is merited.
Sometimes, however, instead of reviewing a book or an address, he
would follow the custom inaugurated early in the history of the
Journal, of making copious extracts, and thus give to its readers an
opportunity of examining materials which otherwise might not fall in
their way.
Gray’s contributions to the Journal comprise more than one
thousand titles, without counting the memorial notices and the
shorter obituary notes. In these notices he sums up in a few well-
chosen words the contributions made to botany by his
contemporaries. Even in the few instances in which he felt obliged to
note with disapproval some of the work, he expressed himself with
personal friendliness. The necrology, as it appeared from month to
month, was a labor of love. All of the longer memorial notices are
what it is the fashion now-a-days to call appreciations, and these are
so happily phrased that it would seem as if the writer in many a case
asked himself, “Would my friend, about whom I am now writing,
make any change in this sketch?”
Gray on Darwinism.—In October, 1859, Darwin’s epoch-making
work, “The Origin of Species,” was published. An early copy was sent
to the editor of the Journal, Professor James D. Dana. This arrived in
New Haven on December 21, but it was preceded by a personal letter
which is of so much interest that it is here transcribed in full. It
should be added that Dana was at this time in Europe where he was
spending a year in the search for health after a serious nervous
breakdown. In his absence the book was noticed by Gray as stated
below. The letter is, as follows:

Down, Bromley, Kent.

Nov. 11th, 1859.

My dear Sir,

I have sent you a copy of my Book (as yet only an abstract) on the Origin of
Species. I know too well that the conclusion, at which I have arrived, will horrify
you, but you will, I believe and hope, give me credit for at least an honest search
after the truth. I hope that you will read my Book, straight through; otherwise from
the great condensation it will be unintelligible. Do not, I pray, think me so
presumptuous as to hope to convert you; but if you can spare time to read it with
care, and will then do what is far more important, keep the subject under my point
of view for some little time occasionally before your mind, I have hopes that you
will agree that more can be said in favour of the mutability of species, than is at
first apparent. It took me many long years before I wholly gave up the common
view of the separate creation of each species. Believe me, with sincere respect and
with cordial thanks for the many acts of scientific kindness which I have received
from you,
My dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Darwin.

In March, 1860 (29, 153), Gray published in the Journal an

elaborate and cautious review of Darwin’s work. He alluded to the
absence of the chief editor of the Journal in the following words:
 “The duty of reviewing this volume in the American Journal of Science would
naturally devolve upon the principal editor whose wide observation and profound
knowledge of various departments of natural history, as well as of geology,
particularly qualify him for the task. But he has been obliged to lay aside his pen to
seek in distant lands the entire repose from scientific labor so essential to the
restoration of his health, a consummation devoutly to be wished and confidently to
be expected. Interested as Mr. Dana would be in this volume, he could not be
expected to accept its doctrine. Views so idealistic as those upon which his
‘Thoughts upon Species’ are grounded, will not harmonize readily with a doctrine
so thoroughly naturalistic as that of Mr. Darwin.... Between the doctrines of this
volume and those of the great naturalist whose name adorns the title page of this
Journal [Mr. Agassiz] the widest divergence appears.”

Gray then proceeds to contrast the two views of Darwin and

Agassiz, “for this contrast brings out most prominently and sets in
strongest light and shade the main features of the theory of the
origination of species by means of Natural Selection.” He then states
both sides with great fairness, and proceeds:

“Who shall decide between such extreme views so ably maintained on either
hand, and say how much truth there may be in each. The present reviewer has not
the presumption to undertake such a task. Having no prepossession in favor of
naturalistic theories, but struck with the eminent ability of Mr. Darwin’s work, and
charmed with its fairness, our humbler duty will be performed if, laying aside
prejudice as much as we can, we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method
and argument, offering by the way a few suggestions such as might occur to any
naturalist of an inquiring mind. An editorial character for this article must in
justice be disclaimed. The plural pronoun is employed not to give editorial weight,
but to avoid even the appearance of egotism and also the circumlocution which
attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style.”

In this review he moves slowly and thoughtfully, but not timidly,

over the new paths. There is no clear indication in the review that he
has yet made up his mind as to the validity of Darwin’s hypothesis.
But, in a second article appearing in the Journal for September of the
same year (30, 226), under the title “Discussion between two readers
of Darwin’s treatise on the origin of species upon its natural
theology” Gray plainly begins to incline to take a very favorable view
of the Darwinian theory, and makes use of the following ingenious
illustration to show that it is not inconsistent with theistic design. A
few paragraphs here quoted show the felicity of his style in a
controverted matter:

“Recall a woman of a past generation and show her a web of cloth; ask her how it
was made, and she will say that the wool or cotton was carded, spun, and woven by
hand. When you tell her it was not made by manual labor, that probably no hands
have touched the materials throughout the process, it is possible that she might at
first regard your statement as tantamount to the assertion that the cloth was made
without design. If she did, she would not credit your statement. If you patiently
explained to her the theory of carding-machines, spinning-jennies, and power-
looms, would her reception of your explanation weaken her conviction that the
cloth was the result of design? It is certain that she would believe in design as
firmly as before, and that this belief would be attended by a higher conception and
reverent admiration of a wisdom, skill, and power greatly beyond anything she had
previously conceived possible.”

By this review Gray disarmed hostility to such an extent that some

persons who had been antagonistic to Darwinism accepted it with
only slight reservation. It may be fairly claimed that the Journal bore
a leading part in influencing the views of naturalists in America in
regard to the Darwinian theory.
Dr. Gray soon put the Darwinian hypothesis to a severe test. In the
Journal for 1840 he had called attention to the remarkable similarity
which exists between the flora of Japan and a part of the temperate
portion of North America. The first notice of this subject by him
occurs in a short review of Dr. Zuccarini’s “Flora Japonica,” a work
based on material furnished by Dr. Siebold, who had long lived in
Japan. In this review (39, 175, 1840), he enumerates certain plants
common to the two regions, and says, “It is interesting to remark
how many of our characteristic genera are reproduced in Japan, not
to speak of striking analogous forms.” In a subsequent paper (28,
187, 1859), he recurs to this subject, and, after alluding to geological
data furnished by J. D. Dana, he says:

“I cannot resist the conclusion that the extant vegetable kingdom has a long and
eventful history, and that the explanation of apparent anomalies in the
geographical distribution of species may be found in the various and prolonged
climatic or other vicissitudes to which they have been subject in earlier times; that
the occurrence of certain species, formerly supposed to be peculiar to North
America, in a remote or antipodal region, affords in itself no presumption that they
were originated there, and that interchange of plants between eastern North
America and eastern Asia is explicable upon the most natural and generally
received hypothesis (or at least offers no greater difficulty than does the arctic
flora, the general homogeneousness of which round the world has always been
thought compatible with local origin of the species) and is perhaps not more
extensive than might be expected under the circumstances. That the interchange
has mainly taken place in high northern latitudes, and that the isothermal lines
have in earlier times turned northward on our eastern and southward on our
northwest coast, as they do now, are points which go far towards explaining why
eastern North America, rather than Oregon and California, has been mainly
concerned in this interchange, and why the temperate interchange, even with
Europe, has principally taken place through Asia.”
 From “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin” by
Francis Darwin.

This paper was communicated in 1859, on the eve of the

publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” At a later date he applied
the Darwinian theory to the possible solution of the problem, and
came to the conclusion that the two floras had a common origin in
the Arctic zone, during the Tertiary period, or the Cretaceous which
preceded it, and the descendants had made their way down different
lines toward the south, the species varying under different climatic
conditions, and thus exhibiting similarity but not absolute identity of
form. Before the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, in his Presidential address, in 1872, he used the following
language:

“According to these views, as regards plants at least, the adaptation to successive

times and changed conditions has been maintained, not by absolute renewals, but
by gradual modifications. I, for one, cannot doubt that the present existing species
are the lineal successors of those that garnished the earth in the old time before
them, and that they were as well adapted to their surroundings then, as those
which flourish and bloom around us are to their conditions now. Order and
exquisite adaptation did not wait for man’s coming, nor were they ever
stereotyped. Organic Nature—by which I mean the system and totality of living
things, and their adaptation to each other and to the world—with all its apparent
and indeed real stability, should be likened, not to the ocean, which varies only by
tidal oscillations from a fixed level to which it is always returning, but rather to a
river, so vast that we can neither discern its shores nor reach its sources, whose
onward flow is not less actual because too slow to be observed by the ephemeræ
which hover over its surface, or are borne upon its bosom.”

Gray’s active interest in the Journal continued until the very end of
his life. There were many critical notices from his pen in 1887. His
last contribution to its pages was the botanical necrology, which
appeared posthumously in volume 35, of the third series (1888). His
connection with the Journal covered, therefore, a period of more
than a half a century of its life.[185]
The changes that were wrought in botany by the application of
Darwinism were far reaching. Attempts were promptly made to
reconstruct the system of botanical classification on the basis of
descent. The more successful of these endeavors met with welcome,
and now form the groundwork of arrangement of families, genera,
and species, in the Herbaria in this country, in the manuals of
descriptive botany, and in the text-books of higher grade. This
overturn did not take place until after Gray’s death, although he
foresaw that the revolution was impending.
One of the most obvious changes was that which gave a high
degree of prominence in American school treatises to the study of the
lower instead of the higher or flowering plants, these latter being
treated merely as members in a long series, and with scant
consideration. But of late years, there has been a renewed popular
interest in the phænogamia, leading to a more thorough
investigation of local floras, and also to the examination of the
relations of plants to their surroundings. The results of a large part of
this technical work are published in strictly botanical periodicals and
now-a-days seldom find a place in the pages of a general journal of
science.
 Cryptogamic Botany in the Journal since
1846.
In glancing rapidly at the First Series it has been seen that a fair
share of attention was early paid by the Journal to the flowerless
plants. So far as the means and methods of the time permitted, the
ferns, mosses, lichens, and the larger algæ and fungi of America were
studied assiduously and important results were published, chiefly on
the side of systematic botany.
The Second Series comprises the years between 1846 and 1871. In
this series one finds that the range of cryptogamic botany is much
widened. Besides interesting book notices relative to these plants,
there are a good many papers on the larger fungi, on the algæ, and
mosses. Here are contributions by Curtis, by Ravenel, by Bailey, and
by Sullivant. The lichens are treated of in detail by Tuckerman, and
there are some excellent translations by Dr. Engelmann of papers by
Alexander Braun. Some of the destructive fungi are considered, as
might well be the case in the period of the potato famine. It is in
these years that one first finds the name of Daniel Cady Eaton, who
later had so much to do with developing an interest in the subject of
ferns in this country. He was a frequent contributor of critical
notices.
Cryptogamic Botany, as it is now understood, is a comparatively
modern branch of science. The appliances and the methods for
investigating the more obscure groups, and especially for revealing
the successive stages of their development, were unsatisfactory until
the latter half of the last century. Gray recognized this condition of
affairs, and appreciated the importance of the new methods and the
better appliances. Therefore he viewed with satisfaction the pursuit
of these studies abroad by one of his students and assistants, William
G. Farlow. Dr. Farlow carried to his studies under DeBary and others
unusual powers of observation and great industry. He speedily
became an accomplished investigator in cryptogamic botany and
enriched the science by notable discoveries, one of which to-day
bears his name in botanical literature. On his return to the United
States, Farlow entered at once upon a successful career as an
inspiring teacher and a fruitful investigator. He became a frequent
contributor to the Journal, keeping its readers in touch with the
more important additions to cryptogamic botany. He had wisely
chosen to deal with the whole field, and consequently he has been
able to preserve a better perspective than is kept by the extreme
specialist. The greater number of cryptogamic botanists in this
country have been under Professor Farlow’s instruction.
Systematic and Geographical Botany of Late
Years.
The usefulness of the Journal in descriptive systematic botany of
phanerogams is shown not only by its acceptance of the leading
features of DeCandolle’s Phytography, where very exact methods are
inculcated, but by the very numerous contributions by Sereno
Watson and others at the Harvard University Herbarium, as well as
from private systematists. It is in the pages of the Journal that one
finds the record of much of the critical work of Tuckerman and of
Engelmann, in interesting Phanerogamia. Of late years the Journal
has had the privilege, of publishing a good deal of the careful work of
Theo Holm, in the difficult groups of Cyperaceæ, and also his
admirable studies in the morphology and the anatomy of certain
interesting plants of higher orders.
Attention was called, in passing, to Gray’s deep interest in
geographical botany. In this important branch, besides his
contributions, one finds, among many others, such papers as
LeConte’s “Flora of the Coast Islands of California in Relation to
Recent Changes of Physical Geography” (34, 457, 1887), and
Sargent’s “Forests of Central Nevada” (17, 417, 1879). Examination
reveals a surprising number of communications which bear
indirectly upon this subject.
 Paleontological Botany.
When the Journal began its career, the subject of fossil plants was
very obscure. Brongniart’s papers, especially the Journal
translations, enabled the students in America to undertake the
investigation of such fossils and the results were to a considerable
extent published in the Journal. Since the subject belongs as much to
geology as to botany, it finds its appropriate home in the pages of the
Journal. The recent papers on this topic show how great has been the
advance in methods and results since the early days of the Journal’s
century. Under the care of George E. Wieland, the communications
and the bibliographical notices of paleontological treatises show the
progress which he and others are making in this attractive field.
 Economic Botany, Plant Physiology, etc.
At the outset, the Journal, as we have seen, devoted much
attention to certain phases of economic botany, and, even down to
the present, it has maintained its hold upon the subject. The
correspondence of Jerome Nicklès from 1853 to 1867 brought before
its readers a vast number of valuable items which would not in any
other way have been known to them. And the Journal dealt wisely
with the scientific side of agriculture, under the hands of S. W.
Johnson and J. H. Gilbert, and others, placing it on its proper basis.
This work was supplemented by Norton’s remarkable work in the
chemistry of certain plants, the oat, for example, and certain plant-
products. In fact it might be possible to construct from the pages of
the Journal a fair synopsis of the important principles of agronomy.
Physiology has been represented not only by the studies which had
been inaugurated and stimulated by the Darwinian theory, such as
the cross-fertilization and the close-fertilization of plants, plant-
movements, and the like, but there have been a good many special
communications, such as Dandeno on toxicity, Plowman on electrical
relations, and ionization, and W. P. Wilson on respiration.
There are many broad philosophical questions which have found
an appropriate home in the Journal, such as “The Plant-individual in
its relation to the species” (Alexander Braun, 19, 297, 1855; 20, 181,
1855), and “The analogy between the mode of reproduction in plants
and the alternation of generations observed in some radiata” (J. D.
Dana, 10, 341, 1850). Akin to these are many of the reflections which
one finds scattered throughout the pages of the Journal, frequently
in minor book notices. As might be expected, some attention has
been paid to the very special branch of botany which is strictly called
medical. For example, early in its history, the Journal published a
long treatise by Dr. William Tully (2, 45, 1820), on the ergot of rye.
This is considered from a structural as well as from a medical point
of view and is decidedly ahead of the time in which it was written.
There are a few references to vegetable poisons, and there is a
fascinating account of the effect of the common white ash on the
activities of the rattlesnake. In short it may be said that the editor did
much towards making the Journal readable as well as strictly
scientific.
The list of reviewers who have been permitted to use the pages of
the Journal for notices of botanical and allied books in recent years is
pretty long. One finds the initials of Wesley R. Coe, George P.
Clinton, Arthur L. Dean, Alexander W. Evans, William G. Farlow,
George L. Goodale, Arthur H. Graves, Herbert E. Gregory, Lafayette
B. Mendel, Leo F. Rettger, Benjamin L. Robinson, George R.
Wieland, and others.
At the present time, in the biological sciences, as in every
department of thought, there is great specialization, and each
specialty demands its own private organ of publication. Naturally
this has led to a falling off in the botanical communications to the
Journal, but it cannot be forgotten that the history of North
American Botany has been largely recorded in its pages.
 Notes.
184. Scientific Papers of Asa Gray. Selected by Charles Sprague Sargent. Two
volumes, Boston, 1889 (see notice in vol. 38, 419, 1889).

185. A notice of Gray’s life and works is given by his life-long friend, J. D.
Dana, in the Journal in 1888 (35, 181–203).
 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
2. Used numbers for footnotes.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CENTURY OF
SCIENCE IN AMERICA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE