Part 73

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.

Footnote 174:

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

Footnote 175:

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

Footnote 176:

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

Footnote 177:

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

Footnote 178:

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

Footnote 179:

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

Footnote 180:

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

Footnote 181:

The Germ-cell Cycle in Animals, 1914.

Footnote 182:

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

Footnote 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.