“_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:
[Illustration: Sincerely yours Asa Gray]
“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.”
[Illustration: 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._
Footnote 184:
Scientific Papers of Asa Gray. Selected by Charles Sprague Sargent.
Two volumes, Boston, 1889 (see notice in vol. 38, 419, 1889).
Footnote 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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------