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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. 2. Used numbers for footnotes. 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 4. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=. 5. The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like 1^{st}). 6. Subscripts are shown using an underscore (_) with curly braces { }, as in H_{2}O.