Part 21
Robert Brown (1773-1858) was the first British botanist to support and advocate the natural system of classification. The publication of his _Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae_ (in 1810), according to the natural method, led the way to the adoption of that method in the universities and schools of Britain. In 1827 Brown announced his important discovery of the distinction between Angiosperms and Gymnosperms, and the philosophical character of his work led A. von Humboldt to refer to him as "Botanicorum facile princeps." In 1830 John Lindley published the first edition of his _Introduction to the Natural System_, embodying a slight modification of de Candolle's system. From the year 1832 up to 1859 great advances were made in systematic botany, both in Britain and on the continent of Europe. The _Enchiridion_ and _Genera Plantarum_ of S.L. Endlicher (1804-1849), the _Prodromus_ of de Candolle, and the _Vegetable Kingdom_ (1846) of J. Lindley became the guides in systematic botany, according to the natural system.
The least satisfactory part of all these systems was that concerned with the lower plants or Cryptogams as contrasted with the higher or flowering plants (Phanerogams). The development of the compound microscope rendered possible the accurate study of their life-histories; and the publication in 1851 of the results of Wilhelm Hofmeister's researches on the comparative embryology of the higher Cryptogamia shed a flood of light on their relationships to each other and to the higher plants, and supplied the basis for the distinction of the great groups Thallophyta, Bryophyta, Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae, the last named including Gymnospermae and Angiospermae.
A system of classification for the Phanerogams, or, as they are frequently now called, Spermatophyta (seed-plants), which has been much used in Great Britain and in America, is that of Bentham and Hooker, whose _Genera Plantarum_ (1862-1883) is a descriptive account of all the genera of flowering plants, based on their careful examination. The arrangement is a modification of that adopted by the de Candolles. Another system differing somewhat in detail is that of A.W. Eichler (Berlin, 1883), a modified form of which was elaborated by Dr Adolf Engler of Berlin, the principal editor of _Die natrurliche Pflanzenfamilien_.
The study of the anatomy and physiology of plants did not keep pace with the advance in classification. Nehemiah Grew and his contemporary Marcello Malpighi were the earliest discoverers in the department of plant anatomy. Both authors laid an account of the results of their study of plant structure before the Royal Society of London almost at the same time in 1671. Malpighi's complete work, _Anatome Plantarum_, appeared in 1675 and Grew's _Anatomy of Plants_ in 1682. For more than a hundred years the study of internal structure was neglected. In 1802 appeared the _Traite d'anatomie et de physiologie vegetale_ of C.F.B. de Mirbel (1776-1854), which was quickly followed by other publications by Kurt Sprengel, L.C. Treviranus (1779-1864), and others. In 1812 J.J. P. Moldenhawer isolated cells by maceration of tissues in water. The work of F.J.F. Meyen and H. von Mohl in the middle of the 19th century placed the study of plant anatomy on a more scientific basis. Reference must also be made to M.J. Schleiden (1804-1881) and F. Unger (1800-1870), while in K.W. von Nageli's investigations on molecular structure and the growth of the cell membrane we recognize the origin of modern methods of the study of cell-structure included under cytology (q.v.). The work of Karl Sanio and Th. Hartig advanced knowledge on the structure and development of tissues, while A. de Bary's _Comparative Anatomy of the Phanerogams and Ferns_ (1877) supplied an admirable presentation of the facts so far known. Since then the work has been carried on by Ph. van Tieghem and his pupils, and others, who have sought to correlate the large mass of facts and to find some general underlying principles (see PLANTS: _Anatomy of_).
The subject of fertilization was one which early excited attention. The idea of the existence of separate sexes in plants was entertained in early times, long before separate male and female organs had been demonstrated. The production of dates in Egypt, by bringing two kinds of flowers into contact, proves that in very remote periods some notions were entertained on the subject. Female date-palms only were cultivated, and wild ones were brought from the desert in order to fertilize them. Herodotus informs us that the Babylonians knew of old that there were male and female date-trees, and that the female required the concurrence of the male to become fertile. This fact was also known to the Egyptians, the Phoenicians and other nations of Asia and Africa. The Babylonians suspended male clusters from wild dates over the females; but they seem to have supposed that the fertility thus produced depended on the presence of small flies among the wild flowers, which, by entering the female flowers, caused them to set and ripen. The process was called palmification. Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle in his school in the 114th Olympiad, frequently mentions the sexes of plants, but he does not appear to have determined the organs of reproduction. Pliny, who flourished under Vespasian, speaks particularly of a male and female palm, but his statements were not founded on any real knowledge of the organs. From Theophrastus down to Caesalpinus, who died at Rome in 1603, there does not appear to have been any attention paid to the reproductive organs of plants. Caesalpinus had his attention directed to the subject, and he speaks of a halitus or emanation from the male plants causing fertility in the female.
Nehemiah Grew seems to have been the first to describe, in a paper on the _Anatomy of Plants_, read before the Royal Society in November 1676, the functions of the stamens and pistils. Up to this period all was vague conjecture. Grew speaks of the _attire_, or the stamens, as being the male parts, and refers to conversations with Sir Thomas Millington, Sedleian professor at Oxford, to whom the credit of the sexual theory seems really to belong. Grew says that "when the attire or apices break or open, the globules or dust falls down on the seedcase or uterus, and touches it with a prolific virtue." Ray adopted Grew's views, and states various arguments to prove their correctness in the preface to his work on European plants, published in 1694. In 1694 R.J. Camerarius, professor of botany and medicine at Tubingen, published a letter on the sexes of plants, in which he refers to the stamens and pistils as the organs of reproduction, and states the difficulties he had encountered in determining the organs of Cryptogamic plants. In 1703 Samuel Morland, in a paper read before the Royal Society, stated that the farina (pollen) is a congeries of seminal plants, one of which must be conveyed into every ovum or seed before it can become prolific. In this remarkable statement he seems to anticipate in part the discoveries afterwards made as to pollen tubes, and more particularly the peculiar views promulgated by Schleiden. In 1711 E.F. Geoffrey, in a memoir presented to the Royal Academy at Paris, supported the views of Grew and others as to the sexes of plants. He states that the germ is never to be seen in the seed till the apices (anthers) shed their dust; and that if the stamina be cut out before the apices open, the seed will either not ripen, or be barren if it ripens. He mentions two experiments made by him to prove this--one by cutting off the staminal flowers in Maize, and the other by rearing the female plant of Mercurialis apart from the male. In these instances most of the flowers were abortive, but a few were fertile, which he attributes to the dust of the apices having been wafted by the wind from other plants.
Linnaeus took up the subject in the inauguration of his sexual system. He first published his views in 1736, and he thus writes--"Antheras et stigmata constituere sexum plantarum, a palmicolis, Millingtono, Grewio, Rayo, Camerario, Godofredo, Morlando, Vaillantio, Blairio, Jussievio, Bradleyo, Royeno, Logano, &c., detectum, descriptum, et pro infallibili assumptum; nec ullum, apertis oculis considerantem cujuscunque plantae flores, latere potest." He divided plants into sexual and asexual, the former being Phanerogamous or flowering, and the latter Cryptogamous or flowerless. In the latter division of plants he could not detect stamens and pistils, and he did not investigate the mode in which their germs were produced. He was no physiologist, and did not promulgate any views as to the embryogenic process. His followers were chiefly engaged in the arrangement and classification of plants, and while descriptive botany made great advances the physiological department of the science was neglected. His views were not, however, adopted at once by all, for we find Charles Alston stating arguments against them in his _Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants_. Alston's observations were founded on what occurred in certain unisexual plants, such as Mercurialis, Spinach, Hemp, Hop and Bryony. The conclusion at which he arrives is that the pollen is not in all flowering plants necessary for impregnation, for fertile seeds can be produced without its influence. He supports parthenogenesis in some plants. Soon after the promulgation of Linnaeus's method of classification, the attention of botanists was directed to the study of Cryptogamic plants, and the valuable work of Johann Hedwig (1730-1799) on the reproductive organs of mosses made its appearance in 1782. He was one of the first to point out the existence of certain cellular bodies in these plants which appeared to perform the functions of reproductive organs, and to them the names of antheridia and pistillidia were given. This opened up a new field of research, and led the way in the study of Cryptogamic reproduction, which has since been much advanced by the labours of numerous botanical inquiries. The interesting observations of Morland, already quoted, seem to have been neglected, and no one attempted to follow in the path which he had pointed out. Botanists were for a long time content to know that the scattering of the pollen from the anther, and its application to the stigma, were necessary for the production of perfect seed, but the stages of the process of fertilization remained unexplored. The matter seemed involved in mystery, and no one attempted to raise the veil which hung over the subject of embryogeny. The general view was, that the embryo originated in the ovule, which was in some obscure manner fertilized by the pollen.
In 1815 L.C. Treviranus, professor of botany in Bonn, roused the attention of botanists to the development of the embryo, but although he made valuable researches, he did not add much in the way of new information. In 1823 G.B. Amici discovered the existence of pollen tubes, and he was followed by A.T. Brongniart and R. Brown. The latter traced the tubes as far as the nucleus of the ovule. These important discoveries mark a new epoch in embryology, and may be said to be the foundation of the views now entertained, which were materially aided by the subsequent elucidation of the process of cytogenesis, or cell-development, by Schleiden, Schwann, Mohl and others. The whole subject of fertilization and development of the embryo has been more recently investigated with great assiduity and zeal, as regards both cryptogamous and phanerogamous plants, and details must be sought in the various special articles. The observations of Darwin as to the fertilization of orchids, _Primula, Linum_ and _Lythrum_, and other plants, and the part which insects take in this function, gave an explanation of the observations of Christian Konrad Sprengel, made at the close of the 18th century, and opened up a new phase in the study of botany, which has been followed by Hermann Muller, Federico Delpino and others, and more recently by Paul Knuth.
One of the earliest workers at plant physiology was Stephen Hales. In his _Statical Essays_ (1727) he gave an account of numerous experiments and observations which he had made on the nutrition of plants and the movement of sap in them. He showed that the gaseous constituents of the air contribute largely to the nourishment of plants, and that the leaves are the organs which elaborate the food; the importance of leaves in nutrition had been previously pointed out by Malpighi in a short account of nutrition which forms an appendix to his anatomical work. The birth of modern chemistry in the work of J. Priestley and Lavoisier, at the close of the 18th century, made possible the scientific study of plant-nutrition, though Jan Ingenhousz in 1779 discovered that plants incessantly give out carbonic acid gas, but that the green leaves and shoots only exhale oxygen in sunlight or clear daylight, thereby indicating the distinction between assimilation of carbonic acid gas (photosynthesis) and respiration. N.T. de Saussure (1767-1845) gave precision to the science of plant-nutrition by use of quantitative methods. The subjects of plant nutrition and respiration were further studied by R.J.H. Dutrochet towards the middle of the century, and Liebig's application of chemistry to agriculture and physiology put beyond question the parts played by the atmosphere and the soil in the nutrition of plants.
The phenomena of movements of the organs of plants attracted the attention of John Ray (1693), who ascribed the movements of the leaf of Mimosa and others to alteration in temperature. Linnaeus also studied the periodical movements of flowers and leaves, and referred to the assumption of the night-position as the sleep-movement. Early in the 19th century Andrew Knight showed by experiment that the vertical growth of stems and roots is due to the influence of gravitation, and made other observations on the relation between the position assumed by plant organs and external directive forces, and later Dutrochet, H. von Mohl and others contributed to the advance of this phase of plant physiology. Darwin's experiments in reference to the movements of climbing and twining plants, and of leaves in insectivorous plants, have opened up a wide field of inquiry as to the relation between plants and the various external factors, which has attracted numerous workers. By the work of Julius Sachs and his pupils plant physiology was established on a scientific basis, and became an important part of the study of plants, for the development of which reference may be made to the article PLANTS: _Physiology_. The study of form and development has advanced under the name "morphology," with the progress of which are associated the names of K. Goebel, E. Strasburger, A. de Bary and others, while more recently, as cytology (q.v.), the intimate study of the cell and its contents has attracted considerable attention.
The department of geographical botany made rapid advance by means of the various scientific expeditions which have been sent to all quarters of the globe, as well as by individual effort (see PLANTS: _Distribution_) since the time of A. von Humboldt. The question of the mode in which the floras of islands and of continents have been formed gave rise to important speculations by such eminent botanical travellers as Charles Darwin, Sir J.D. Hooker, A.R. Wallace and others. The connexion between climate and vegetation has also been studied. Quite recently under the name of "Ecology" or "Oecology" the study of plants in relation to each other and to their environment has become the subject of systematic investigation.
The subject of palaeontological botany (see PALAEOBOTANY) has been advanced by the researches of both botanists and geologists. The nature of the climate at different epochs of the earth's history has also been determined from the character of the flora. The works of A.T. Brongniart, H.R. Goeppert and W.P. Schimper advanced this department of science. Among others who contributed valuable papers on the subject may be noticed Oswald Heer (1809-1883), who made observations on the Miocene flora, especially in Arctic regions; Gaston de Saporta (1823-1895), who examined the Tertiary flora; Sir J.W. Dawson and Leo Lesquereux, and others who reported on the Canadian and American fossil plants. In Great Britain also W.C. Williamson, by his study of the structure of the plants of the coal-measures, opened up a new line of research which has been followed by Bertrand Renault, D.H. Scott, A.C. Seward and others, and has led to important discoveries on the nature of extinct groups of plants and also on the phylogeny of existing groups.
Botany may be divided into the following departments:--
1. Structural, having reference to the form and structure of the various parts, including (a) Morphology, the study of the general form of the organs and their development--this will be treated in a series of articles dealing with the great subdivisions of plants (see ANGIOSPERMS, GYMNOSPERMS, PTERIDOPHYTA, BRYOPHYTA, ALGAE, LICHENS, FUNGI and BACTERIOLOGY) and the more important organs (see STEM, LEAF, ROOT, FLOWER, FRUIT); (b) Anatomy, the study of internal structure, including minute anatomy or histology (see PLANTS: _Anatomy_).
2. Cytology (q.v.), the intimate structure and behaviour of the cell and its contents--protoplasm, nucleus, &c.
3. Physiology, the study of the life-functions of the entire plant and its organs (see PLANTS: _Physiology_).
4. Systematic, the arrangement and classification of plants (see PLANTS: _Classification_).
5. Distribution or Geographical Botany, the consideration of the distribution of plants on the earth's surface (see PLANTS: _Distribution_).
6. Palaeontology, the study of the fossils found in the various strata of which the earth is composed (see PALAEOBOTANY).
7. Ecology or Oecology, the study of plants in relation to each other and to their environment (see PLANTS: _Ecology_).
Besides these departments which deal with Botany as a science, there are various applications of botany, such as forestry (see FORESTS AND FORESTRY), agriculture (q.v.), horticulture (q.v.), and materia medica (for use in medicine; see the separate articles on each plant). (A. B. R.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Morison, _Pradudia Botanica_ (1672); _Plantarum Historia Universalis_ (1680).
[2] Rivinus (Augustus Quirinus) paterno nomine Bachmann, _Introductio genetatis in Rem Herbariam_ (Lipsiae, 1690).
[3] Tournefort, _Elemens de botanique_ (1694); _Institutiones Rei Herbariae_ (1700).
BOTANY BAY, an inlet on the coast of Cumberland county, New South Wales, Australia, 5 m. south of the city of Sydney. On its shore is the township of Botany, forming a suburb of Sydney, with which it is connected by a tramway. It was first visited by Captain Cook in 1770, who landed at a spot marked by a monument, and took possession of the territory for the crown. The bay received its name from Joseph Banks, the botanist of the expedition, on account of the variety of its flora. When, on the revolt of the New England colonies, the convict establishments in America were no longer available (see DEPORTATION and NEW SOUTH WALES), the attention of the British government, then under the leadership of Pitt, was turned to Botany Bay; and in 1787 Commodore Arthur Phillip was commissioned to form a penal settlement there. Finding, on his arrival, however, that the locality was ill suited for such a purpose, he removed northwards to the site of the present city of Sydney. The name of Botany Bay seems to have struck the popular fancy, and continued to be used in a general way for any convict establishment in Australia. The transportation of criminals to New South Wales was discontinued in 1840.
BOTHA, LOUIS (1862- ), Boer general and statesman, was the son of one of the "Voortrekkers," and was born on the 27th of September 1862 at Greytown (Natal). He saw active service in savage warfare, and in 1887 served as a field-cornet. Subsequently he settled in the Vryheid district, which he represented in the Volksraad of 1897. In the war of 1899 he served at first under Lucas Meyer in northern Natal, but soon rose to higher commands. He was in command of the Boers at the battles of Colenso and Spion Kop, and these victories earned him so great a reputation that on the death of P.J. Joubert, Botha was made commander-in-chief of the Transvaal Boers. His capacity was again demonstrated in the action of Belfast-Dalmanutha (August 23-28, 1900), and after the fall of Pretoria he reorganized the Boer resistance with a view to prolonged guerrilla warfare. In this task, and in the subsequent operations of the war, he was aided by his able lieutenants de la Rey and de Wet. The success of his measures was seen in the steady resistance offered by the Boers to the very close of the three years' war. He was the chief representative of his countrymen in the peace negotiations of 1902, after which, with de Wet and de la Rey, he visited Europe in order to raise funds to enable the Boers to resume their former avocations. In the period of reconstruction under British rule, General Botha, who was still looked upon as the leader of the Boer people, took a prominent part in politics, advocating always measures which he considered as tending to the maintenance of peace and good order and the re-establishment of prosperity in the Transvaal. After the grant of self-government to the Transvaal in 1907, General Botha was called upon by Lord Selborne to form a government, and in the spring of the same year he took part in the conference of colonial premiers held in London. During his visit to England on this occasion General Botha declared the whole-hearted adhesion of the Transvaal to the British empire, and his intention to work for the welfare of the country regardless of racial differences. (See TRANSVAAL: _History_.)
BOTHNIA, GULF OF, the northern part of the Baltic Sea (q.v.). The name is preserved from the former territory of Bothnia, of which the western
## part is now included in Sweden, the eastern in Finland.
BOTHWELL, JAMES HEPBURN, 4TH EARL OF, duke of Orkney and Shetland (c. 1536-1578), husband of Mary, queen of Scots, son of Patrick, 3rd earl of Bothwell, and of Agnes, daughter of Henry, Lord Sinclair, was born about 1536. His father, Patrick, the 3rd earl (c. 1512-1556), was the only son of Adam, the 2nd earl, who was killed at Flodden, and the grandson of Patrick (d. c. 1508), 3rd Lord Hailes and 1st earl of Bothwell. It was this Patrick who laid the foundation of the family fortunes. Having fought against King James III. at the battle of Sauchieburn in 1488, he was rewarded by the new king, James IV., with the earldom of Bothwell, the office of lord high admiral and other dignities. He also received many grants of land, including the lordship of Bothwell, which had been taken from John Ramsay, Lord Bothwell (d. 1513), the favourite of James III.