John Merle Coulter 9781400877942

Citation preview

John Merle Coulter

John Merle Coulter Missionary in Science

BY ANDREW DENNY RODGERS III

Princeton, New Jersey PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

1944

Copyright, 1944, by Princeton University Press Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press at Princeton, Neiu Jersey London: Humfhrey Milford, Oxford University Press

'['0

DOC,[,OR ADOLPH EDWARD WALLER

T

PREFACE

JL Η Ε writing of a history of American science must proceed by con­ tributions. It is submitted that employment of a biographical method does not necessarily interfere with either accuracy or fullness of his­ torical narrative and has the added interest of depicting the work of men whose very lives have become part of the history of the science. Letters, unpublished writings, stories, and other pertinent data may not be regarded by scientists as the most authoritative sources of his­ torical information. But when regarded as sources of published writ­ ings, these acquire historical significance and allocated to places of proper interest are deserving of consideration. This book stresses the lives and work of individuals in relation to the development of the plant sciences. Its intention, while historical, boasts no claim of completeness either as to the lives or work con­ cerned. Although it is believed that the most important matters in the development of the plant sciences, particularly botany, during the periods dealt with are considered, a small acquaintance with the vast abundance of materials available will make the reason for what incompleteness exists quite obvious. The author of this book has sought by every means available to authenticate all conclusions advanced. Experience has shown that with every year valuable historical matter is being destroyed or lost; so much so that unless libraries and other agencies further the task of saving documents of historical importance, a fear is not unwarranted that adequate and complete interpretation of development of the various branches of plant science will never be possible. Not only is there need of research at the sources but there is also need of bringing together in book form the materials from such research. Many of the conclusions of this book are more fully developed in another book by this author, soon to be published as American Botany 1873-1892: Decades of Transition. By far the largest amount of that volume's content is unpublished and gathered from sources not gener­ ally available. It is submitted that a complete and even proper under­ standing of history of the plant sciences is not possible without knowl­ edge of such materials. Should this author's work do nothing else than

Vlll

Preface

impress upon scientists the desirability of saving documents of his­ torical importance, his work will have more than justified its exist­ ence. Let us examine the past to get some idea of what the future holds remains an imperative today as much as ever before. For science is a structure built on a foundation. Its very firmness of base and growth, it is hoped, will be revealed in part in these pages. A. D. R.

CONTENTS PREFACE

CHAPTER I.

Vll

THE BEGINNING YEARS AT HANOVER

CHAPTER II. WESTERN EXPLORATIONS

I

12

CHAPTER III. THE INDIANA FLORA

CHAPTER IV. THE YEARS AT WABASH COLLEGE

CHAPTER V. THE YEARS AT WABASH (CONTINUED) THE TAXONOMIC STUDIES

77

CHAPTER VI. PRESIDENT OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

102

CHAPTER VII. PRESIDENT OF LAKE FOREST COLLEGE

126

CHAPTER VIII. THE FIRST YEARS AT CHICAGO

CHAPTER IX. LEADERSHIP IN WORLD BOTANY

175

CHAPTER X. PURE AND PRACTICAL SCIENCE

206

CHAPTER XI. THE ALL-INCLUSIVE SCIENCE

CHAPTER XII.

THE BOYCE THOMPSON INSTITUTE FOR PLANT

RESEARCH. THE ERA OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH FULLY INAUGURATED

277

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

308

INDEX

3 10

ILLUSTRATIONS COULTER AS A YOUNG MAN COULTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

facing page

1 175

CHAPTER I THE BEGINNING YEARS AT HANOVER

C3 ν t h e shaded foreland of a high hill in southern Indiana, overlooking for more than twelve miles west and east the course of the quiet, bending Ohio River, lies Hanover College, a school of Pres­ byterian denomination and, excepting Indiana University, the oldest collegiate institution of the state. Situated in Jefferson County in the midst of a vast natural setting of most astonishing beauty, the college lies adjacent to the village of Hanover, a little town built on hills. Nearby are attractive forested ravines, gorges, waterfalls, natural springs, coral reefs, fossil-bearing formations, and a host of other things of great interest to naturalists. In the first half-century of American history, in many smaller de­ nominational colleges like Hanover, the student's course of study was classical, not scientific. Natural history objects were things of beauty— to see, to observe, even to collect—but not to study, except as they manifested an analogy in nature to religion, natural and revealed. Hanover College was not located in the midst of these natural won­ ders because of their proximity for scientific study. The Ohio River was a most important thoroughfare. Students could come by boat to its cabin of learning. Rivers, turnpikes, and railroads controlled in selections of town and college sites in the early years of the West. Scientific interests were completely subordinate to the economic and utilitarian. Although education sought to discipline the mind, in an institution like Hanover it sought also to train ministers and teach­ ers to bring the gospel and classical learning to the fast populating lands of the West. But how would students reach centers of educa­ tion? Once there, what should they learn? The established church and school answered the last question—classical learning and the Bible wreathed with God's approving smile. It was of interest but not first importance that where Hanover is located a varied flora of most uncommon significance is contained in those high, unspoiled, rolling hills, in its deep glens and ravines, along its many streams, and be­ side its great Ohio River. So, for the same reason that "movers" to the West settled a village on a western turnpike passing near Han­ over Landing on the Ohio River, Hanover College was also founded

2

John Merle Coulter

near the river and turnpike. John Finley Crowe did not locate Han­ over Academy because of a nearness to rich scientific materials, espe­ cially in geology, mineralogy, and botany. The academy was to serve the village. Hanover, located six miles from Madison, Indiana, to which town came the state's first railroad, is today a village unspoiled and unspot­ ted by the world. A collection of neat and well-kept homes, with a post office, one or two store buildings, and, of course, some churches, it presents a quiet, restful, pleasant sight—a college town where the best interests of college life are being subserved. There stands an his­ toric Presbyterian church, where, in addition to its services, Hanover College commencements are also annually held. Except installation of a new chancel, a new organ, and some additions and repairs to its brick walls, the church today is very much as it has been for more than a century. Near it, also standing, is the large, white, frame house, homestead of John Finley Crowe, for more than thirty years the col­ lege's professor of logic, rhetoric, history, and political economy. Crowe came in 1823 to Hanover a young minister thirty-six years of age. He and his wife, Esther Alexander, were of brave lineage. His father had been a colonel of the army of the American Revolu­ tion. Some of her ancestors had signed the Mecklenburg declaration of independence. Young Crowe had been educated at Transylvania University and Princeton Theological Seminary. Of strong abolition­ ist sympathies, while serving as a minister and schoolmaster at Shelbyville, Kentucky, he had edited an anti-slavery journal Abolition In­ telligencer. Although a Tennessean by birth, Crowe, called to the Hanover church, crossed the Ohio River to Indiana where "moved by a deep sense of the religious destitution of the country, he opened in a log cabin a Classical School with six pupils,—the germ of Hano­ ver Academy and of Hanover College."1 The cabin site, located near his church and home, is today marked by a large stone with a suitable inscription—in the front yard of the Crowe home. Crowe's struggles to preserve his school were severe and many. They demanded a fighter's courage. Evidently instruction began in January of 1827 and two years later followed procurement of a char­ ter for Hanover Academy. Though called at once Hanover College 1 Joshua B. Garritt, Materials for a History of Hanover College from 1849 to 1879. Unpublished narrative, p. 51.

The Beginning Years at Hanover

3

by pupils, the college charter was not obtained until 1832. The be­ ginnings were flourishing. Founded on a system enabling students to earn their way, working part time at classical studies and part time at some gainful occupation, the student number rapidly increased. In 1830 literary societies were organized. A new college building was erected3 and in 1836 the college charter was "extended to include a Theological Seminary. Eight professors and two hundred and thirty students was an amazing number for so young a college as Hanover. Quite certainly Crowe's faith and courage produced results; God, on whose blessing he had relied, smiled on his "humble effort," he said. However, in 1837 a violent tornado laid the college in ruins. A west­ ern financial panic, together with gradual disintegration of the manual labor system, brought forebodingly a financial crisis. Within a year, the college's bright, happy future was clouded. Members of the board, seeing the specter growing worse, surrendered its charter and a new university was placed at Madison. Crowe's indomitable in­ tention, nevertheless, would not yield. Hanover College had been founded to train "good soldiers" to serve western wilderness con­ gregations. The Presbyterian Synod and "friends of literature" re­ fused to aid Madison University and, requesting Hanover College's reestablishment, Crowe reorganized and reopened the college he had founded. Students, after three months' residence in Madison, re­ turned. And a new charter was issued to Hanover College. In remote West Virginia hills, Moses Stanley Coulter, a young man anxious to obtain an education but poor, heard of the college and its manual labor system. Bearing credentials of moral character, a knowledge of barrel making, and some education, he journeyed down the Ohio River to Hanover Landing and presented himself to the college, it is believed, in 1844, expecting to labor in a cooper's shop, a printing shop, or the like, to learn the classics and theology. Han­ over College had not gotten over its struggle. Financial trials and a year of inactivity during which many students went elsewhere than Madison, had left funds, its library, and most of its apparatus and equipment depleted. Hanover students loved Hanover. The presi­ dent, Dr. Scovel, and the vice-president, Dr. Crowe—Crowe persist­ ently refused to become president—worked diligently and by 1848, the year of Coulter's graduation, a number approaching one hundred students were in attendance. Within a few years a library fund would

4

John Merle Coulter

be secured, a large endowment for those times would be collected or pledged, and the number of students would increase by 1853 t0 two hundred. A faculty of six professors and a tutor in 1849 would rank the college one of the best small colleges of the West; so much so the board of trustees would feel called upon to take steps to purchase "the Campbell farm," situated "between the village of Hanover and the Ohio River, upon a beautiful point, overlooking a view of the river [from] an elevation of four hundred feet." There, it was planned, a new campus and a site for a large new building would be selected; there lots for professors' homes, for a botanic gar­ den, for other "ornamental purposes," would be laid out. Altogether Hanover College was to become one of the most prominent small colleges of the great Central West. Moses Stanley Coulter, nevertheless, did not remain at Hanover after his graduation. The foreign missionary field called him and, on recommendation of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions in­ stanced, of course, by a recommendation from Hanover College, he was sent in January of 1849 to Ningpo, China, to serve as superin­ tendent of the Mission Press. With him he took Caroline Crowe, whom he had married the year of his graduation. She, the daughter of John Finley Crowe, presented him with a son on November 20, 1851. Though named for John Crowe, he was christened John Merle—"Merle" being the French name for a bird that is crow-like in its blackness, but thrush-like in its song. On June 2, 1853, another son was born and to him was given the name, Stanley. Tragedy, however, made its way into the happy Coulter home in Ningpo, Chi­ na. The heroic career of M. S. Coulter—the printer trained at Han­ over, Indiana, called into still larger fields of Christian service—was terminated by death. M. S. Coulter was summoned by death before the birth of his second child. Caroline Crowe Coulter waited a few months and then, with her two sons, John Merle and Stanley, and a Chinese nurse, sailed from Canton to go by way of the Cape of Good Hope on a six months' voyage to New York. The Chinese nurse nick­ named John Merle, "Coco," meaning "big brother," and Stanley, "Didi," meaning "little brother." These names persisted for many, many years in the family, being permanently memorialized by John G. Coulter in his biographical account of Stanley Coulter, entitled

The Beginning Years at Hanover

5

The Dean.2 The voyage, at last ended, Caroline Coulter and her two small sons reached the family homestead of John Finley Crowe late in r 854. In a little more than five years she had returned to the home of her birth in Hanover, a widow never to remarry and soon to begin a courageous struggle in the bringing up of her two youthful but able sons. Adversity was to follow the small Coulter family still further. In 1857 Dr. Crowe retired from active teaching on the faculty of Han­ over College, becoming professor-emeritus. Although he continued to meet with the faculty, hearing some recitations and engaging in the writing of a History of Hanover College, on January 24, 1859, he was compelled by changes in his general health to retire completely. "... I feel that I ought not to stand a single day in the way of those who are competent to perform all the duties belonging to my Depart­ ment," said Crowe, "I trust that I may have your prayers that I may be sustained under the trial, and preserved from either murmuring or repining. God is good and merciful as well as just." The "trial" to which he referred was the suffering occasioned by the death of his beloved wife on August 10, 1858. For many years she had been an invalid but she had been such a source of encouragement and aid to him in his continuous years of struggle for the academy and college, going on without her, even though for the college, resulted in the impairment of his health. And on January 17, i860, he died, "[h]aving faithfully served his generation." The losses of first her husband and then her mother and father were severe for Caroline Coulter. In the space of less than a decade her entire family situation had been altered. She must have been most concerned about the lack of paternal care which faced her two young boys. But Joshua B. Garritt, a graduate of first Hanover College and later a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, had married her sister Sadie, the happiest and gayest of Crowe's twelve children. And they came to live in the Crowe homestead. In the autumn of 1856 he had become professor of Latin at Hanover College and the influence he was able to wield in the lives of Caroline's two sons, especially in the life of John Merle, was immeasurable. Soon after her father's death, Caroline struck out on her own. She 2 Distributed by the Purdue Alumni Office, Memorial Union Building, Lafayette, Indiana.

6

John Merle Coulter

first located as a teacher in a private school at Madison but in 1861 accepted a position in the Presbyterian Collegiate Institute at Waveland, Indiana. It is said that she was a remarkable student in mathe­ matics, and had studied at a female seminary at Steubenville, Ohio. Finding cube roots in darkness, she often put herself to sleep at night. In any event, she became a remarkably proficient teacher in years when women were not abundant as instructors. Her brother, James, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church at Crawfordsville, sought to aid her. In the basement of his church, a day school was opened and Mrs. Coulter left Waveland and settled there as a teacher. John Merle and Stanley, it is told, served as sexton and janitor in the church of their uncle, receiving at Christmas time for their services five dollars all of which they invested as a present for their mother. They rang the bell in the church steeple. Most remarkable, John Merle aided with the teaching of some of the children. Both boys as they developed showed evidence of straightforward­ ness and self-sufficiency. But John Merle indicated more his abil­ ity as a student. While yet a young boy, on an occasion of living at Hanover, he went swimming. An axe at the place of swimming had slipped and fallen into the sand of the stream-bed. John Merle, after diving, struck his knee against the axe, laying his kneecap over. The scene was in the Ohio River at a beach fully a mile from his home. The boys with him rescued him and a good village physician was summoned. At Madison there was located a good government hos­ pital. His mother called the chief doctor there, who became much interested in the case. But an infection set in and an abscess developed. The faithful of Hanover gathered in church to pray for John Merle. He was, however, a year in bed and he amused himself making paper baskets. Whether he began his preparatory studies at the Crowe home in bed is not positively certain. At the age of thirteen years, he is re­ garded as having entered the preparatory department of Hanover College. The annual catalogue for the year 1865 makes no mention of his name. But in 1866 John Merle was definitely enrolled as a senior. Six classmates, three from Indiana, one from Ohio, one from West Virginia, and one from Mississippi, were with him among the eighty-four students enrolled in Hanover College. And this number included not only students of the classical course of the college but also those of the preparatory department as well as those of the scien-

The Beginning Years at Hanover

7

tific course which had been established about the year 1852. His course of study included Latin, Greek, geography, algebra, and Eng­ lish Bible. By then Hanover College had moved its campus from the farm homestead of John Finley Crowe to the elevated bluff on the Ohio River. For two years after his illness John Merle was on crutches and it was not easy for him to walk the mile to the comparatively new "Classic Hall," the spacious, commodious brick structure nearly eighty feet square with lateral and transverse wings, the whole length extending nearly two hundred feet. It was the joy of Hanover Col­ lege, being regarded "unequalled, at least in the West, in its fitness for the object designed," and stood in the center of the new campus in full view of the river and the surrounding hills. Nevertheless, young Coulter continued in the college and with the beginning of the 1866-1867 year enrolled in the collegiate department, taking the classical course of study. During this year college fraternities were made lawful in the school and eventually John Merle joined Phi Gamma Delta. Membership in the literary societies was a coveted honor and the society to which he linked his forensic and literary fu­ ture was Union, a society more than a quarter of a century old, be­ lieved to be the oldest literary society of the West, the first one estab­ lished west of the Allegheny Mountains. Every indication pointed to a brilliant future for young Coulter in Hanover College. And the indications were justified. John Merle Coulter became Hanover Col­ lege's most brilliant student. These years were not easy, either. The college was once again pass­ ing through a turbulent, transitional period, brought on in part as an aftermath of the Civil War. In November, 1866, President James Wood announced his resignation. But three professors were left to provide the scholastic necessities of a diminishing number of students: S. Harrison Thomson, professor of mathematics, mechanical philos­ ophy, and astronomy·, J. W. Scott, professor of natural science} and Joshua B. Garritt, professor of Greek language and literature. Ev­ ery one of them was a minister of the gospel and with cheerful, uncomplaining faith divided the work of Dr. Wood among them­ selves. Thomson took "Butler's Analogy," moral science and political economy. Scott took English literature, Constitution of the United States, and logic. And Garritt took over the subjects of history and

8

John Merle Coulter

Greek Testament. Dr. Scott became the president pro tempore. Dur­ ing the year 1867 there were but seventy-five students with ten grad­ uates. In 1868 these numbers fell to fifty-six students, with seven graduates. In John M. Coulter's class of sophomores, he had but six classmates, all but two of whom were from Indiana, one from Minne­ sota and the other from Missouri. Coulter had friends—his closest friend, Thomas R. Paxton was in the class ahead of him—and his young brother, M. Stanley Coulter by 1868 was enrolled as a fresh­ man. But the Latin language! That was his principal interest and had been since his years at home when Uncle Joshua Garritt had aided him with his early learning in the subject. This too had suffered. In 1866 Reverend W. A. Holliday, professor of the Latin and modern languages, retired. His work also had been divided among the re­ maining teachers. Adversity, however, sometimes changes misfortune to fortune. In the instance of John Merle, this was most certainly so. Adversity, his knee injury, had given him the chance to develop his native tendency toward study. His first years of education were in most part self-education. For the balance of his life he became a firm advocate of the method's merit and efficacy. Not only did avidity for study of the Latin and Greek orations enkindle the spark of genius in him as an orator but the discipline prepared the way for develop­ ment of his scientific aptitudes. At any rate he became a great student of Latin. Science had a slow arduous growth at Hanover. For many years after establishment of a scientific department, the school refused to recommend its course "as in any sense an equivalent for a thorough Classical Course." Some presidents, as, for example, Dr. Thomas E. Thomas, were much interested in natural science, especially geology. Since 1835 the college had had a professor of natural science and one or two who held the chair evinced quite a notable taxonomic interest. Writing of Professor Augustus King, Joshua Garritt said: Professor King proved to be an • enthusiastic devotee to Natural Science, especially to the branch of Herbatology.3 He proposed to the Board the estab­ lishment of a Special Scientific Course of Study. The Board took no action on this subject, but a special room in the basement of the College building was set aside for his use in his investigation, which for a time presented an in­ teresting collection of frogs, lizards, snakes, etc. to the interest and curious gaze of students and visitors. 3

Herpetology (?)

The Beginning Years at Hanover

9

This school established in obedience to a resolution of Salem Pres­ bytery, then Indiana's only Presbytery4—the school which became a college, was discontinued, and then revived on request of the Syn­ od—early recognized science. This college, guided by a "wise Provi­ dence" in accordance "with the plan of Infinite Wisdom" recognized science but was more interested in theology and religion, not to forget, of course, literature and the classics. But thirty years can make a great difference. On November 13, 1857, during the college's thir­ tieth year of existence, the student literary societies gathered on the old college grounds and, preceded by members of the faculty, marched to the new campus and "Classic Hall" where new halls of the societies were being dedicated. Dr. Crowe addressed them, giving an historical account of the college. After interpreting the tornado of 1837 as an act of Providence which brought about a reorganization of the college under a more liberal charter, the doctor continued: . . . The thirteen years of the existence of the new college have been marked with trials and vicissitudes. Trials and vicissitudes intended doubtless for the trial of the faith and patience of its friends, for in these troublous times God has built for us this beautiful house; and is now favoring us with the partial consummation of our hopes in permitting us to dedicate to the interests of science and literature and religion the new, convenient and splendid halls of the Union Literary and Philalathean Societies. . . .5

Such a strong, noble adherence to faith commands admiration, even though not everyone may agree intellectually with Crowe. Ob­ viously, it was a powerful faith and one that wielded a very strong influence over John Merle Coulter. Science was definitely being brought to the foreground. As Hanover's development went, so went its students. By Coulter's time, therefore, science had some structural framework to its credit. And strengthening followed. In May, 1868, George D. Archibald of New York was elected president. When the following autumn Dr. Scott retired as professor of natural science, Dr. Archibald and the board elected to the place Frank H. Bradley, a Yale graduate and still in Yale's employ as a collector of geological specimens.6 Coulter was this year a junior and, in addition to Hebrew, Latin, mathematics, and political economy, his course called for chemistry, psychology, physics, and botany using 4 See Reverend J. F. Crowe's "Address to the Literary Societies of Hanover College," delivered 1857, Hanover College Monthly (October 1877), pp. 2-5. 5 O f . c i t . · , p. 4j italics are mine. 6 Joshua B. Garritt, of. cit., p. 84.

10

John Merle Coulter

for textbook that of Asa Gray. Geology had been studied with min­ eralogy as a senior course. However,, since Bradley taught Coulter during his first year at Hanover, they probably knew one another and when excursions were added in the spring term to the senior course in geology it is possible that Coulter accompanied the class. In any event Bradley and he became acquainted and possibly went to­ gether on other excursions among the hills and valleys around Hano­ ver. If so, they went for geology and botany since in the spring term Coulter studied "Botany, Structural and Systematic" with Bradley. Frank H. Bradley must have been Coulter's first teacher in botany. The subject had been offered before to juniors at Hanover but it was a course using Alphonso Wood's textbook, not very stimulating, and Coulter being a sophomore could not have taken a junior subject. Bradley's tenure at Hanover College, however, was only until the June meeting of the board in 1869. At that time he tendered his res­ ignation, receiving thereupon the board's thanks "for his fidelity."7 The story is that, when questioned by one of the trustees, he admitted that the geologic record indicated an origin of the earth not entirely consistent with an infallibly literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation.8 That was enough in those severe years of Calvinistic doctrine. Bradley left. Steps were immediately taken to fill the vacancy in natural science. An executive committee was appointed and they selected before the autumn term Edward Thomson Nelson, a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University, with postgraduate work at Yale. Whether Bradley aided the committee in Nelson's selection is not known. However, Nelson arrived and became the most potent early single influence in Coulter's life scientifically. Nelson had a "lively" interest in plants, going among the surrounding hills in search of them, and Coulter accompanied him. So strong was Nelson's influence that for the time being, it is said, Coulter became a " 'botany fiend.' "9 The young student by this time was a senior and his course of study included anatomy and physiology, zoology, astronomy and uranography, but no botany. Nevertheless, Nelson continued the excursion practice commenced by Bradley in the course of mineralogy and geology and 7

8 John G. Coulter, The Dean, of. cit., p. 45. Joshua B. Garritt, o f . c i t . , p. 85. Mrs. John M. Coulter, quoted in Biografhical Memoir of John Merle Coulter, by William Trelease, National Academy of Sciences, vol. XIV. 9

The Beginning Years at Hanover

11

Coulter, taking the course, was j oined by his brother Stanley and A. Harvey Young, also of Hanover. Coulter always became interested in everything he studied, and his interest in botany lasted. Together Nelson, the Coulters, and Young initiated a work in botanic study which continued for years. Its ends would be a compilation of an In­ diana flora and in part the establishment of the Botanical Gazette. These young men began assembling materials later to be published as a report on the flora of Jefferson County, a report which would have much to do with the institution of a state-wide investigation of In­ diana's flora. Moreover, at this time was begun the collecting of ma­ terial for a museum at Hanover College. To the west near the famous Falls of the Ohio River they gathered large quantities of coral fos­ sils—fossils of the Paleozoic and other periods of geologic history— where the canal had been cut through a coral reef. Coulter's interest in both botany and paleontology date from these immature, but happy and pleasant, rambles through ravines and gorges, glens and dells, over the high hills, and along the many streams and wide, winding Ohio. Dr. W. A. Millis in his History of Hanover College from 1827 to 192710 regards the calling of Edward Thomson Nelson as probably the most important contribution to the school made by Dr. Archibald's administration. Nelson's projection of a conception and spirit of sci­ entific study in the college brought about the beginnings of the realiza­ tion toward which John Finley Crowe looked in his last years—when the interests of science, literature, and religion would serve as com­ plements in the common cause of all, the education of the youthful. John Merle Coulter would do more in science for Hanover—later. No more lasting triumvirate of influences from his early life, how­ ever, could now be named than those of Grandfather Crowe perpet­ uated by Uncle Joshua Garritt, of Frank Bradley in geology, and of Edward Thomson Nelson in botany. Let it always be remembered that John Finley Crowe's influence, moreover, was the dominant one—it was the strong influence of theology and religion in Coulter's life. As Hanover College became the lengthened shadow of Crowe, so Crowe became an indwelling spirit in the heart and mind of J ohn Merle Coulter. 10 Hanover

College, Hanover, Indiana (1927), p. 70.

CHAPTER II WESTERN EXPLORATIONS

W- en John Merle graduated from Hanover College in 1870, he stood at the head of his class in scholarship. Not only was he vale­ dictorian of Union Literary Society, receiving also faculty commenda­ tion for excellence in studies, but he was living proof of the value of scientific study. By the year of his graduation, the College Cabinet, as it was called, possessed several thousand mineralogical specimens. Coulter had had much to do with gathering these under the instruc­ tion of Bradley and Nelson. Of the natural sciences there is little doubt that geology was his principal interest. Although he must have heard with interest that the board had authorized a scientific course that would occupy four years, making it "more nearly equal in ex­ cellence to the classical course,"1 Coulter was steadfast in his loyalties. He had been a student of the classics too many years to have the sciences, however great his interest, displace the study of strongest associations—Latin, learned both at home and in school. It is said that when Coulter had finished his classical studies he could read Latin almost as well as English. His knowledge of Greek was not far behind Latin. He knew French and some German. Consequently Coulter's first decision after graduation was to teach Latin. Botany seems to have been at this time an avocation, a pleasurable study of much interest. Caroline Coulter these many years had waged a victorious fight to maintain herself and her sons independently. She had continued teaching and was now located in another Presbyterian school, a girls' seminary, at Logansport, Indiana. In the autumn of his graduation year, John Merle went to this school to be near his mother, and to teach Latin, Greek, and other subjects needed. Young Stanley Coulter had spent several more years with his mother than had John. The latter's knee injury had kept him more closely confined to Hanover. Nevertheless, though Coulter was happy during his incumbency at Presbyterian Seminary of Logansport, he did not remain there. Frank H. Bradley was appointed chief geologist to the great United States 1Joshua B. Garritt, o f . c i t . , p. 88. See also the 39th Annual and 13th Triennial Cata­ logue of Hanover College, 1871, p. 18, where the four-year course of the scientific de­ partment is described.

Western Explorations

13

Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories under Ferdi­ nand Vandeveer Hayden, the United States geologist. Bradley had not forgotten Coulter, nor had Coulter forgotten him. Coulter was selected to serve as assistant geologist. It is not too much to say that John regarded the work as of a summer's duration. Probably, further­ more, he wanted to be out-of-doors—his winter's work for two years and more had kept him closely to books—certainly he regarded it as pleasure. At any rate, whether for reasons of health or pleasure, he accepted. On May 24, 1872, a party of five members of the survey, among them Coulter, gathered at their rendezvous at Ogden, Utah. Ar­ riving there by way of the famous and comparatively new Union Pacific Railroad, they were compelled by virtue of their early arrival to go to a Mormon hotel until such time as their camp should be lo­ cated. Their eyes opened wide as walking from the station to the hotel they saw signs on the Mormon stores, "Holiness to the Lord! Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution." The grand scenery of Echo and Weber canyons had interested them much not only for their associa­ tions with Mormon history but for "their precipices and rocky pin­ nacles of red sandstone, their wild [wide] chasms and rushing wa­ ters." Next day they sought to climb a peak behind their hotel, seem­ ingly near, but when they had walked the distance, it proved three or four miles. Coulter wrote in his diary: . . . We concluded at last to try the mountain and up we started. The top did not seem very far above us and we thought the view might pay for our long walk. We soon got into a dense undergrowth of shrubs whose branches all pointed down-hill, presenting an insurmountable obstacle. While toiling and struggling in this gingle, unable to move one way or another we suddenly heard the whir! whirr! of a rattlesnake from beneath our feet. We never knew how it was done, but we immediately found a way out of that thicket. This so disgusted one of our party that he pined for the flesh pots of our Mormon hotel and "subsequent proceedings interested him no more.". . . These four then climbed till they reached the top and found the top still above them in the shape of a snowy peak that looked loftier than it did from the hotel. Then another of the party suddenly sprained his ankle so badly that he thought it would not be prudent for him to go farther. . . . Three of us then determined to climb on if we should have to climb all night. We had some rather difficult places. Once we held on to a ledge of rock only by the grip of our fingers and with our feet dangling in vacancy we worked our way along inch by inch. Here another man gave up and said we would have to come back in the night and he never could get across such a place as that in

14

John Merle Coulter

the dark. The two that were left trudged bravely on until at six o'clock in the evening, one of them stood on the highest point, the other having stopped on an adjoining point within hailing distance. The view of course was fine and though we undoubtedly will see many finer landscapes, this is our first high mountain view and probably no other will excite the same emotion. We were standing 10,000 feet above the sea level and about 5,000 above the basin which was spread out at our feet like a map, with Great Salt Lake glimmering twenty miles away. Mormon towns dotted everywhere the broad landscape. . . . We concluded to try another route, hoping thus to shorten our distance. Instead of following down the ridge we had ascended, we started down a gulch that headed between the two peaks we had been upon. The winter's snow had accumulated in this gulch and it had made a broad white surface stretch­ ing far down the valley at a steep angle. All of a sudden, without a word, my companion sat down on this snow drift, and giving himself a little start went flying down the long incline at break-neck speed, occasionally checking himself by striking his geological hammer deep into the snow. I saw he was shortening the distance and saving time in a wonderful way and that I had to follow his example or be left behind. If I had only possessed a board I might have coasted with considerable ease, but this thing of sitting down flat on the snow with nothing but buckskin between me and any sharp pointed crag that might be lurking just beneath the surface was anything but a pleasant prospect. But down I sat and started and traveled towards my destination with as much ease and rapidity as I had the day before in the cars. . . .

They reached their hotel late that night "sore and almost in rags, but we were proud," said Coulter, "and with considerable self-com­ placency we rubbed the bruised spots and mended the rents." The party remained near Ogden just one month. Animals and supplies had to be brought together and the rest of the survey mem­ bers had to arrive. While waiting, the Wasatch Mountains nearby were scientific objectives, the examinations being prominently geo­ logical. But Coulter was entranced with the flora of the region—so un­ like that of the Ohio River valley. In the late afternoons and early evenings, after survey duties were done, he began collecting plants. Soon he had gathered together a large number of plants of the region and one night while examining specimens with the idea of putting them in press, he heard a voice over his shoulder which was that of Dr. Hayden. Hayden had noticed that all of the other members of the party at the time of his arrival were amusing themselves playing cards and he asked Coulter what kind of a game of solitaire he was enjoying. So impressed was Hayden with the young geologist's floral collections that he urged Coulter to continue. This was about the last of May and all the remaining time near Ogden Coulter collected in earnest.

Western Explorations

15

Several trips were made to the shores of Great Salt Lake. More than 300 species were gathered, "representing fully," Coulter explained, "the June vegetation of the locality. Representatives were obtained from four different conditions of soil and temperature, viz, the bor­ ders of Salt Lake and its neighboring alkaline marshes 5 the common sandy-brush plain ... j the alluvial deposits along Ogden and Weber Rivers j and the mountains of the Wahsatch Range. On the latter very few alpine plants were discovered, for a sub-alpine flora clothes almost entirely the highest peaks."2 In this simple statement was shown the beginning of Coulter's final transition of interest from ge­ ology to botany. Was here the seed sown of Coulter's later large eco­ logical interest? If so, observe that its development was innate, com­ bined with learning. The name, "ecology," was not applied then in North America to the study of plants in their habitat. No one had taught Coulter botanical systemization except Nelson and Bradley and what was learned from them was the system of Torrey and Gray. Yale's professor of botany under whom both Nelson and Bradley must have studied was Daniel Cady Eaton who had been trained by Gray and Torrey and placed at Yale by them. Except as one con­ siders Torrey and Gray's interest in geographical plant distribution as ecological, they had little to say in ecology. Hayden divided the Survey of 1872 into two parties. The largest party was placed under Captain James Stevenson, his first assistant. And in this group were Bradley and Coulter. Hayden took charge of the smaller party and they went by stage to Fort Ellis and then into Yellowstone Valley, arranging, however, to meet the larger party in the Geyser Basin in August. Captain Stevenson's party left Ogden on June 24 and, following the roads running north along the base of the Wasatch Mountains, crossed Bear River where it breaks through the range into the divide between the Great Basin and the Columbia River drainage. The Snake River country was then a new and interesting region to scientific ex­ ploration. Indeed, Hayden regarded the opening of this valley as "one of the most important events in American explorations for the year 1872." Fort Hall, however, was the first destination of impor2 See Coulter's complete account in Sixth Annual Refort of the United. States Geological Survey of the Territories embracing parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah; a report of progress of exploration for 1872, by Hayden (Washington: Gov't Printing Office, 1873), pp. 747-792.

i6

John Merle Coulter

tance and, reaching there on July 3, their wagons were "turned in," a pack train was outfitted, new supplies were secured, and on the 12th, the party took up the journey again "across the broad lava plains to the northward." Coulter regarded his floral collections important but not until they had reached the Teton Basin did he believe that he had reached the end of the first separate and distinct division of the botany of the expedition. The next division, according to him, was to be the flora of the Teton Range and the'mountains along the Yellowstone. On July 16, he recorded in his diary: This morning we left the old stage road leading across the mountains to Helena, Montana, and turned across a dry, sandy plain, covered with sage brush, towards the Tetons, whose sharp jagged summits had been in sight for some days. Last night we had our worst experience with mosquitoes and were glad to leave the infested place at the break of day. The mosquitoes actually blackened the air with their innumerable swarms, covering the horses as with a living blanket, and making us smother ourselves in thick veils. We could hardly eat at all for fear of swallowing these ferocious insects. We had seen the day before in the line of our march two flat topped buttes, at the foot of which we wished to camp. Early in the afternoon we arrived at our destination and found it a most delightful place. Pitching our camp in a lovely spot on the banks of this clear stream (Henry's Fork of Snake River), and turning our animals out in the rich luxuriant grass up to their knees, we ascended one of these buttes. They proved to be the craters of extinct volcanoes and were hence called Crater Buttes. . . . Our geologist concluded that these eruptions were sub-aquaeous and had taken place when the whole plain was covered by a lake. The rock is principally sandstone and is curiously worn into towers and castles, one of which was called "Kenilworth Castle" from its supposed resemblance to those ruins. . . . Upon one side . . . we found rude carvings, evidently the work of Indians, who had found the soft sandstone very favorable for their work. We saw and recognized horses, men, cranes, bison, jackrabbits, bears, etc. The view from the top of these rocks I shall never forget. We looked down on a rich grassy plain through which the river ran with slow current, lined with cotton-wood trees, the only tree growth for miles. The fine meadows and the groves of trees dotting them here and there wherever a stream afforded them sufficient moisture, made it seem like a land under high cultivation and we almost expected to see fine houses and herds of cattle. But there was no sign of life except in our own little camp and that seemed to be asleep, for the horses were standing perfectly still, too full to move, and to all appearances, perfectly happy. When night came mosquitoes began to get bad again and we all huddled around our "smudges," hoping to drive away the unwelcome intruders by choking and blinding ourselves with smoke. Shep Madeira (our hunter and head packer), who had spent all his life roaming through the west, edified us with some of his marvellous adventures and escapes till our hair stood on end and we began to fear for ourselves when we should penetrate a little deeper in these wilds. . . .

Western Explorations

17

On further from civilization the party went, visiting the Sand Hill Mountains and making a careful survey of the Teton range. The Big Teton was named Mount Hayden3 and then leaving the Tetons "after too brief an examination to be at all satisfactory, though as complete as the general interests of the survey would permit," Brad­ ley said, "the party turned back to the valley of Henry's Fork, and followed the general course of that stream to its source in Henry's Lake."4 They entered the lower and upper Madison River valleys through various passes, principally "Tyghee" or Taghee Pass, and reached the Fire-Hole Basin, and Geyser Basin of the Madison Au­ gust 14, arriving there within a few hours of the arrival of Hayden's party. After this date the flowering season had almost passed and only a few species not before collected were thereafter noticed. Of course later in September and October as they proceeded on the return jour­ ney down the South Fork of the Snake River, plants in an advanced state of fruitage were gathered. And not till October 11, on the re­ turn to Fort Hall, did Coulter close the botanic collections, "having," as he said, "been about five months in the field." Hayden's party remained at the Geyser Basin until August 20 and then went on down the Madison. Captain Stevenson's party re­ mained while supplies were brought from Virginia City. As a con­ sequence, Coulter had ample time to examine the flora of the FireHole Basin quite thoroughly. Hayden assigned a boiling spring or geyser to members of the party and the geologic phenomenon which the "boy," John Merle Coulter, drew was Old Faithful Geyser. As its eruptions were soon realized to be regular, timed to the minute, Coulter could leave its locale between eruptions and gather plants, making numerous cogent observations. The effect of the hot water on the plant floor interested him. Many years later in an address, he observed, "In the Great Geyser basin of the National Park, from craters of various size and shape, hot waters are belched forth at in­ tervals with thunderous noise, and run down the slopes in every di­ rection} but not a spear of grass or even moss or lichen can grow, and 3 It was claimed that Stevenson's ascent of the Teton range was the first made by a white man. 4 See Bradley's account published in The American Journal of Science and Arts, third series, VI (1873), 194 if.

i8

John Merle Coulter

the result is absolute desolation."5 And in his Report of the Hayden Survey, he said: The flora of the Fire-Hole Basin is distinct, from the fact that it is a region so covered with hot springs and geysers, giving in the geyserite, scattered everywhere, an unnatural soil, and creating an artificial warmth. The geyserite is a bleak, barren waste, supporting only plants peculiar to itself, and seeming to kill everything of a different nature. A great number of the hot springs have made deposits until they have almost closed themselves up. On top of this a soil has collected, the spring underneath keeps it warm, and the luxuriant growth of a regular hot-bed is the result. The plants that grow in such situa­ tions are not all of them different in species from those that grow in the valleys near by, but they spring up much ranker and attain two or three times their usual size.

Coulter had observed in all of "this western region" the absence of a great group of plants—the ferns. But two localities were found where they were "in any size or abundance"—under the shadow of the Tetons on the eastern slope where mosses were also abundant and lichens common on volcanic rocks of the Teton range—and in a new Geyser basin discovered by Stevenson's party near the lake they named Shoshone Lake. Bradley told the story: . . . On September 1st, we started upstream, on our return to Fort Hall. About eight miles above Old Faithful, we came unexpectedly upon another basin of hot springs, with one large geyser mound. . . . On the 4th, we reached the head of the stream, and spent next day in camp, being detained by a snow storm. On the 6th, however, it cleared; and we crossed the divide to the east­ ward. In approaching the head of the Madison, we had expected to find within its basin the lake seen by Dr. Hayden in 1871, and named to him by his guides as Madison Lake; but we were disappointed. We found the source of the stream, however, in a pond covering about sixty acres, to which we were obliged to transfer the name Madison Lake. Upon crossing the divide to the larger lake, we found it to belong to the Snake River drainage, and therefore called it Shoshone Lake, adopting the Indian name of the Snake. At the western extremity of the lake, we found the valley of its principal tributary occupied by a large number of hot springs, including several geysers of moderate size. . . . In [one] which was called the Minute Man, a series of eruptions commenced with strong jets reaching from 30 to 40 feet in height....

The party to which Coulter was attached took numerous side trips but as most of these were taken in the last month of exploration, their significance was geologic, rather than botanic. Especially impressive to Coulter were reconnaissances which included Yellowstone Lake, 5 "The Elements of Power," Baccalaureate Address at Lake Forest, Illinois (June 10, 1894), by John M. Coulter.

Western Explorations

19

the Falls, and the Grand Canyon. Several episodes with wild ani­ mals, most with black and cinnamon bears, might be recounted but their authenticity is not established. One incident told of a large black bear which Coulter ostensibly shot but, on returning where the bear had fallen, it was discovered the bear had died, and not been shot. An­ other is that Coulter, while examining vegetation along a lake, felt something at his back and turning, discovered a large black bear amusing himself observing Coulter. Coulter escaped by diving into the lake and swimming away. A similar story, perhaps too much a story, is told by Coulter in his diary—of a hunter who was picked up by a bear and hurled into the water, and similarly allowed to swim away. Other amusing adventures are told—one that clothes left near a geyser were to Coulter's surprise sucked into the geyser crater by a sudden eruption and backwash of the water. They are typical sto­ ries brought back by explorers of that day. One is unquestionably true. "Coulter's Creek" was named for Coulter by men of the expedi­ tion commemorating a fall from his horse. It is said for many years Coulter enjoyed telling these stories. Unless they have grown with the years, Coulter returned with a sense of humor difficult to explain. In any event, the systematization of the botany of the survey took him to Washington. When he arrived at Fort Hall and the two par­ ties of Hayden and Stevenson were reunited, the collections made by Hayden's collector, Walter Piatt, were merged with his. In the course of the journey Coulter had been made official botanist of the expedition. He had even been given an assistant, Philo J. Beveridge, who Coulter said, "proved himself an active, earnest worker." As a matter of fact, most of the collection was pressed by Beveridge. Emphasis must be placed on these facts. It must be remembered that Coulter did not go on this expedition prepared to become bot­ anist. It was an honor that he was made such. At this time he had little learning in botany. He had great eagerness, it is obvious, and it is apparent that he quickly demonstrated remarkable facility with some difficult problems. But, on reaching Washington, he began a period of study in which he learned much from books as well as bo­ tanic materials. Maintaining a connection with the survey to write up his studies, the great United States National Herbarium and the li­ braries of the Department of Agriculture and the Smithsonian In­ stitution were available to him. Access to the survey's collections of

20

John Merle Coulter

other years was afforded. Particularly were collections of the year 1871 made available since much of the region traversed in 1872 had been gone over the year before by Hayden and some plants col­ lected. But no one had been completely satisfied with the scientific thoroughness with which especially the Yellowstone regions had been explored—as a matter of fact, for the first time, rumors of trad­ ers and trappers as to the existence of a hot spring and geyser area had then been established as true—and so with a largely increased appropriation Hayden's forces had been returned in 1872 to Montana and adjacent territories. Most important of all, Coulter was placed in communication with a botanist trained in the Torrey methods of classification—Thomas Conrad Porter, a botanist of many years standing and fifty years of age. Professor of botany at Lafayette Col­ lege and an explorer of several eastern coastal states, Porter was rec­ ognized as one of America's leading botanists. He had previously systematized plant collections for Hayden and became the third per­ son in Coulter's life to impress upon him a large scientific interest. Consequently, when Coulter transmitted his report on botany to Hayden on April 15, 1873, Coulter said: I wish here to express my thanks for the many favors I have received from botanists. To Professor Thomas C. Porter were intrusted all the doubtful specimens and new species of Phenogamia, and I am under the greatest obligation to him for his prompt attention and ready response, as well as for the great interest he has always shown in my work. He very kindly consented to make a reexamination of my whole collection of Phenogamia, except the Coniferaei and to correct the mistakes of inexperience. . . .

Although the plants catalogued in his report were said to be all collected during the season of 1872, Coulter added, "For the con­ venience of those interested in comparing the flora of the eastern and western slopes, I add here three tables compiled from the col­ lections made in 1871 and 1872. . . . It will be remembered that col­ lections were made on the Rocky Mountain slopes between latitude 430 and 460." Cyferaceae were done by S. T. Olney; Graminaceae7 by George Vasey 5 Musci1 by Leo Lesquereux; Lichens, by Henry Willey; Fungi, by Charles H. Peckj and the Phaenogamia were ar­ ranged in three tables, as found on both slopes, as found on the east­ ern slope, and as found on the western slope. In his 1872 Report to Hayden Coulter hinted very strongly that

Western Explorations

21

he hoped that he would be retained in the survey's service the fol­ lowing summer. He regarded the "study of western flora [as] an im­ mense field open now to all lovers of botany." The dangers to which the early western explorers were subjected—risks of death from bullets, tomahawks, arrows and other agencies of Indian warfare— were greatly diminished. Roadways and railroads had appreciably reduced the danger of starvation as supplies could more easily be ob­ tained. Ever-increasing population made shelter available. Wild ani­ mals, of course, were still abundant. But the shotgun and vigilance could guard against them. Warfare was diminished. That was the important thing. No longer did the botanical collector have to ac­ company military expeditions although many still did. At least, they accompanied armed forces. The individual collector, however, was becoming much more common all over the western areas. He was by now much less a source of great worry as he risked his life or health to gather scientific information. The United Geological and Geo­ graphical Survey of the Territories met some hostile opposition. They were compelled to defer exploration in some regions, notably the Dakota and more northern regions. Even there, the river areas had been examined. But the interior regions were still lands of destiny, still locales of danger, indeed, in the remote parts still potential battlefields. And Colorado was no exception. In years previous the survey had worked in northern Colorado and in other parts toward New Mexico and into that state. Much of eastern Colorado had been examined for paleobotanical material. And, earlier, such famous col­ lectors as Charles Christopher Parry, T. S. Brandegee, Edward Lee Greene had extensively studied its flora. But the mountainous regions, the high remote areas, remained totally Unexplored in many in­ stances. In 1873 Hayden's survey rendezvoused at Denver and it was ordered that they should survey the eastern portions of the moun­ tainous part of the state. This year the survey was divided into three districts—North, Middle, and Southern. Coulter was ordered to re­ port as an assistant of the survey. The rendezvous camp of Coulter's party was made about the middle of May, four miles from Denver on Clear Creek. There sup­ plies were assembled, the parties organized, "and the summer's cam-

22

John Merle Coulter

paigns planned."6 The early part of the season was spent in going along the Front Range from Long's Peak on the north to Pike's Peak on the south, "containing," Coulter said, "a series of lofty peaks, several of which exceed 14,000 feet in height." From Pike's Peak they swung their line of march due west and went into the mountains, crossing the Front Range at Ute Pass, entering South Park. Wrote Coulter: . . . These immense elevated parks are wonders peculiar to this mountain region. In general they are richly grassed; abound in game; in a delightful climate through the whole year; protected by the mountains from the wintry blasts and enjoying all summer the cooling influence of near-lying snow fields. The sudden sight of one of these parks as we are toiling over some rugged mountain pass, revives our drooping spirits like magic. . . . South Park is one of the most extensive of these elevated plains, and it is bounded on all sides by huge mountain systems. . . .

They proceeded'-directly across the Park to its northwestern corner, "from which," Coulter continued, "rose some of the loftiest peaks in the range. Among these great mountain masses, the highest and grandest is Mt. Lincoln." There Coulter came into contact for the first time with a real alpine flora of wide dimensions. Although when in the Tetons en route on the Yellowstone Survey of 1872 he had gathered a flora unlike anything else he saw on the trip and within three hundred feet of the summit of Mount Hayden found a "fine field . . . for collecting truly alpine plants," his collections there did not rank with his Mount Lincoln materials. Later he pictured his delight on finding the alpine flora of the Colorado mountain: . . . The writer was never more delighted with an alpine flora than when he made an ascent of Mt. Lincoln, in Colorado, a peak considerably over 14,000 feet in height. The ascent was made on July 9th, 1873, a highly favorable time to see mountain plants in all their glory. Late the evening before we had encamped at timberline, which is, in Colorado, from 11,000 to 12,000 feet elevation. This timberline is determined by the lying of the snow in spring. . . . Early we commenced the climb and every step in advance brought us to new beauties, and long before the summit was reached our port­ folios were groaning with treasures which neither love nor money nor fatigue could have induced us to throw away. . . .7

Coulter noticed that the evergreens were "curiously knotted and twisted by the weight of winter snow." On the Yellowstone trip he 6 Professor J. M. Coulter, "Colorado," Gnivri, A College and Literary Journal (Han­ over, Indiana), I, no. i, pp. 3-7. 7 Botanical Bulletin, I, no. 6 (April 1876), pp. 23-24.

Western Explorations

23

had given much time to examining the timberline evergreen growth, especially Pinus ponderosa of the mountainsides. Coulter was also impressed by silver mines on Mount Lincoln. From their camp they could see prospectors' holes "like swallow holes in a river bank." When they reached the summit at about seven o'clock in the morn­ ing, it "was a highly favorable time for the view. Not a suspicion of mistiness in all the wide horizon. The sun shone warm, but there blew a fierce cutting wind which made [them] glad when [they] could, to crouch behind the pyramid of rocks built around the flag­ staff." Within sight, they estimated, were more than two hundred peaks. Said Coulter: . . . In the Sierra Madre Range lay prominently the two lofty peaks named Yale and Harvard, the latter of which has proved to be the loftiest in Colorado. The Blue River Range to the north ended abruptly with what was then thought to be the highest peak of all, the Mt. of the Holy Cross, named from two immense snow banks intersecting each other conspicuously on its side and from several mountains we climbed, away off to the north we saw this cross of snow. . . . We could see to the north Long and Gray and Torr[e]y and a host of their equals, and far to the south rose that great isolated mountain of Pike's Peak. . . . I cannot leave Mt. Lincoln without saying a word about the lovely Alpine flowers which are found growing in profusion on its heights, and in fact on all the mountains here, covering with beauty the grassy slopes on the rocky declivities from timber-line to the very summit. A beautiful Polemonium or "Greek Valerian," with its rich bunches of blue bells I picked up on the very summit. Conspicuous among others are the Claytoniasi or "Spring Beauties," with their delicately penciled petals; the exquisite deep blue of the "Forget-me-not"; Phloxes of every shade of white and purple and blue, and hosts of others. . . .

They left South Park by a pass into the Arkansas River valley and pitched camp between what were known as Twin Lakes. These beau­ tiful waters, nestled under the rough, jagged, high peaks of the Sierra Madre, attracted Coulter instantly. "One who has never seen high mountain lakes," commented he, "can hardly imagine their perfect transparency." Of great interest were these geologically as "part of the grand glacial phenomena of the region," just as the Sierra Madre Range, the "center of the Rocky Mountains" was of interest as "the grandest uplift on the continent." They climbed several high peaks and turned "to that wonderful mountain of the Holy Cross." This, said Coulter, "like the Holy Grail, had to be searched for . . . per­ sistently. To reach it we crossed the range at Tennessee Pass," crossed

24

John Merle Coulter

to the head of Eagle River, found the main drainage stream from the mountain, but, alas! came upon a wild, rough, impassable gorge whose "muttoned rocks" looked like an immense flock of sheep lying on the grass. Fallen timbers among the rocks baffled every attempt to get through till a small and light party with a corps of axmen cut their way and came out on the summit of a ridge leading to the Holy Cross. With heavy geodetic and photographic apparatus they picked their way into the valley, over the rocks, and then with hard scram­ bling made their way from the bottom of the peak to their final camp. The next day they strapped their equipment to their backs, went to the foot of the peak, and began the pull up the mountainside 4,000 feet on a showery day, wet to the skin. Coulter described it: . . . For seven long, weary hours we toiled up that mountain side, and at last reached the longed for summit, having carried our packs for ten con­ secutive hours! Such a load might be carried for the same length of time, along a level road, when the only strength expended was that used in walking; but when almost every step forward is made by straining and lifting one's weight up over cliffs and timber, the exertion becomes tremendous. Soon after gaining the summit, it clouded over and began to storm. . . .

All night they waited with no food, no blankets, a cold wind blast­ ing, and the threat of more rain. Next day, however, they got some "magnificent photographs" and almost completely exhausted by hun­ ger and fatigue returned to camp. With this climb came the conclu­ sion of the season's work and they were "all satisfied to ride leisurely to Denver, apparel [themselves] in a manner more suitable for civil­ ization, and take the cars for home." Coulter returned to Hanover and for a good reason. During the school year of 1872,-1873, on an endowment of $20,000, the Ayres chair of natural science had been established at Hanover College and this "branch of collegiate training [was] assuming larger propor­ tions than ever before in [the] Institution." Facilities in natural phi­ losophy and chemistry were regarded as "second to none in the State, or perhaps in the entire West." Coulter had enriched the museum with rare and valuable additions of minerals and fossils from the Yellowstone Geyser Region and the announcement had been made that he would "furnish his Alma Mater duplicates of his collections for the Smithsonian Institute8 from New Mexico, Colorado and Ari8

Smithsonian Institution.

Western Explorations

25

zona, which he expects will embrace 1,200 or 1,500 species." The announcement stated that the work of carrying out the design, "of making the extensive and beautiful grounds of the College subserve in part the purpose of a Botanical Garden," had already been com­ menced. Coulter, however, was not elected to the chair of natural sciences. Manuel J. Drennan was. Coulter was elected to the chair of Latin language and literature. At the June commencement he had been given the honorary degree A.M. and elected to succeed W. Nevin Geddes, who had been acting professor of Latin. Coulter was one of the first full professors of Hanover College who was not a minister of the gospel. The Presbyterian Seminary at Logansport had been, or was being, closed, and so there was nothing in the way of accepting the honors granted him as Hanover's most brilliant grad­ uate. Indeed, it is said that Coulter was given the choice of chairs— natural science or Latin. He chose the latter. It must be remembered, however, that this choice was made before the Colorado Expedition. Sometime before the summer's close Coulter must have gone to Washington to work with the survey studying and writing up his materials. The plan was conceived of publishing "handbooks" of different branches of natural history. Colorado was to be admitted to the Union as a state in 1876. Most of its mountainous region was now accessible to the traveling public. As a consequence, the plan was devised of publishing a Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado. Porter gave several months to its preparation without compensation from the government. It was prepared by him in conjunction with Coulter and materials dating as far back as Parry's collections of 1861 were utilized. A first attempt to bring together for a restricted region the scattered material of western collectors, it contributed much toward a systematization of Colorado botany on a complete scale. It was a fore­ runner of subsequent Rocky Mountain floras and greatly accelerated the publication of regional floras in America. Certainly it demon­ strated the advantages of small publications of convenient size for the collector—not alone for the professional collector but the amateur as well. Local floras were prevalent in all the states. But floras cover­ ing larger regions like Chapman's flora in the southern states, Gray's manuals in the northeastern states, were only commencing to describe floras of large regions. Porter and Coulter's Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado used the plan of Sereno Watson contained in his publication

26

John Merle Coulter

of the botany of the United States Geological Survey of the 40th Parallel. Through this medium came to Coulter the initial portions of the fourth great influence that contributed to the development of a large scientific interest in the youthful, ambitious Hanover bot­ anist—the contact with Harvard College. The story is told that one day while working at the United States National Herbarium, then in the custody of the United States De­ partment of Agriculture, Coulter had plants spread over many tables and was examining them. An elderly gentleman came into the room and becoming interested in the young botanist's eagerness in arrang­ ing the plants before him, walked from one table to another naming in quick succession all the plants with which Coulter was struggling. Coulter was amazed and asked him what his name was. "My name is Gray," replied the elderly man, "I am interested in your work." Coulter, it is said, stood transfixed. He was standing before the un­ questioned leader of botanic science in North America. From this meeting dated the close friendship which lasted for the balance of Gray's life. Gray had seen Coulter's report of the botany of the Yel­ lowstone Expedition of 1872 and, being impressed with its thorough­ ness and his manifest ability had inquired concerning Coulter. Difficult and doubtful species for the Synopsis of the Flora of Colo­ rado were sent to Gray and Watson. Some were sent to George Thurber of New York City. J. H. Redfield, in charge of botany at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia lent valuable assistance to the work. Again Lesquereux elaborated the Musci and Hepaticae; Henry Willey, the hichens·, and Charles H. Peck, the Fungi. And on January 15, 1874, Porter sent the Synopsis to Hayden for publica­ tion by the survey. It was published on March 20 as Miscellaneous Publication, number four. "I regret," said Porter in his letter of transmittal, "that circum­ stances have prevented the completion of an introductory article on the geographical distribution of the plants embraced in this synopsis." What were these circumstances? Porter does not explain as to him­ self or Coulter. Certainly there was no discord between the two men. As to Coulter, the explanation is not difficult to find. Coulter's new duties as a professor kept him busy. To be sure, he had a Christmas vacation. But no better reason in the world could be had than Coul­ ter's for not giving undivided attention to botany during the Christ-

Western Explorations

27

mas of 1873. On New Year's Day, January 1, 1874, he was married to Georgiana Gaylord of Delphi, Indiana, whose mother was Uncle Joshua Garritt's sister. For many years the Gaylords and Crowes had visited each other at Delphi and Hanover. John Merle always en­ joyed telling the story that the first time he met Georgiana was when as a small boy he was told to go behind a piano and bring a little girl out who refused to come unbidden. During their childhood they had played together. And during her years at Western College, Oxford, Ohio, John had sought her for his own. She was the greatest source of strength in John Merle Coulter's life, the quiet, believing, simple, kindly boon granted men in times of perplexity and need, the sup­ plement and amplifier of moments of happiness, the steadying in­ fluence who without his realizing it steers the course of two lives in the deep, satisfying channels of supreme happiness. They went to live in the "Tull house" of Hanover and their home became the scene of more than one happy party of students of Hanover College. With­ in less than a year they were blessed with a son. And the years of "having babies" were begun. For John Merle and Georgiana had six children, three sons and three daughters, two sons and two daughters of whom grew to manhood and womanhood. What became of Caroline Crowe? Never a year passed but John Merle visited her. When the Presbyterian Seminary at Logansport closed, she returned to Hanover for a while but soon went to Bed­ ford. Nor did he lose contact with his brother. In March of 1873, while Coulter was yet working on his report of the Yellowstone Ex­ pedition, Stanley had made a visit to his brother at Washington to attend, incidentally, the second inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant as president. He had remained about a month, aiding John with some of the loose ends of his work. In 1871 he also had begun a career in Indiana as a teacher and, after several appointments, was settled at Logansport as a principal of a high school. These two brothers were soon to begin a famous partnership in Indiana. On April 29,1873, Coulter gave the first lecture of his long, useful career on the platform. It was given before the Young Men's Chris­ tian Association of Hanover College on the subject which for many years made Coulter's lecturing ability famous, "Our National Park." On May 19 of the following year before the entire student body of the college Coulter lectured on the subject of ccColorado."

28

John Merle Coulter

It must have been clear to the students with whom Coulter was immediately popular where his growing interests lay. During the school-year, 1873-1874, Hanover College had 124 students, 84 clas­ sical students and 40 scientific students representing eleven states of the Union. The scientific course was continuing to gain favor. Not only was the same time required to complete that course as that required by the classical, but all the studies of the classical course ex­ cept Greek and advanced Latin were required to complete the scien­ tific. At the June meeting of the board, 1874, a report was received urging, on recommendation of the faculty, that the scientific course be raised "so that it should be fully parallel with the classic course, in the studies common to both, and equalizing, as far as possible, the value of the two courses."9 At the same time Professor Drennan re­ signed the chair of natural sciences. Coulter, librarian of the college, became also the holder of two chairs—professor of Latin language and literature and acting Ayers professor of natural sciences. In 1876 the transition became complete. At the June meeting of the board of that year, at his own request, Coulter was transferred to the chair of natural sciences.10 There were important reasons for this change. Coulter, in the interim, had decided to devote his life to botany. 9

Joshua B. Garritt, o f . c i t . , p. 109.

10

Ibid., p. 115.

CHAPTER III THE INDIANA FLORA

Jil

Rom Hanover, on July 29, 1875, Coulter addressed a com­ munication to Dr. Gray. It read:

I most certainly beg your pardon for not sending my communication con­ cerning Sullivantia directly to you & also that I did not send you dried speci­ mens without your asking for them. My first thought after making the dis­ covery was to send you some specimens, but a botanical friend informed me that he had sent you some from this locality, so I supposed you had all you desired. I might still have sent you a letter about it, but I knew that, occupying the position you do in the botanical world, you must be overburdened by letters from amateur botanists upon trivial matters & I did not know how much importance you would attach to my "find." I send you by this mail a small package containing about 25 specimens of Sullivantia. If you desire more I will be glad to get them for you. One paper of specimens was collected in '74 and is poisoned. The remaining specimens are of this year's collection & have not been poisoned. I will most certainly accommodate you with roots if I am able. How can I best send them to you? Will it do if I pack them in damp moss? You say that you can pay for any trouble in procuring the roots & shipping them. My dear D[octo]r, I am not a botanist for money, but for' love & I would not count anything a trouble which might do something towards the advance of the science which has my warmest affections. If, however, you have a few duplicates you could spare from your herbarium, I would esteem it a very great favor to receive them. I hope if there is anything I can do for you in this region, over in Kentucky, or out on the Wabash, you will let me know at once. I have found Iso-pyrum biternatum, T. & G. growing here in great abundance. Do you care for any of it? I have in the forthcoming report of our State Geologist a list of the flora of the five counties bordering the Ohio River above the falls at Louisville.

In the Sixth Annual Refort of the Geological Survey of Indiana made during the year 1874, and published at Indianapolis in 1875, appeared "A Partial List o£ the Flora of Jefferson County, Indiana, by John M. Coulter, of Hanover College."1 721 species, 367 genera, and 98 families of plants were contained in the list. This was the first report of any consequence made by Coulter on the Indiana flora. That same year there appeared in the American Naturalisf Coul­ ter's notice of his "find" of Sullivantia Ohionis in Indiana. Sulli­ vantia is a genus of the saxifrage family, a rare, beautiful, little flow1

P. 230.

2 IX,

572.

30

John Merle Coulter

ering plant, named in 1842 by Torrey and Gray for William Starling Sullivant, Gray's close friend and a botanist and business man of Co­ lumbus, Ohio, not far from which city had been found by Sullivant the first known stations of this plant. Some years earlier I. A. Lapham had found the plant on "wet sandstone cliffs at the dells of the Wis­ consin river, where the La Crosse and Milwaukee railroad crosses."3 Coulter's discovery of another station in Clifty Ravine (now a state park) near Hanover was therefore regarded by Gray as important. Later the plant was also found near Charlestown, Indiana, in both in­ stances in limestone gorges in dripping moss. Why did Coulter send his notice to the American Naturalist, and not to Gray? One may only conjecture as to the answer but the con­ jecture is plausible. At this time George Lincoln Goodale was in charge of the department of botany of the Naturalist. Gray was one of the associate editors of the American Journal of Science and· Arts but he was ostensibly retired to complete the Flora of North America which Torrey and he had begun, and Goodale was his assistant. A communication to Goodale could have been regarded as a communica­ tion to Gray. But there is another possible explanation. The American Journal of Science and Arts had not reviewed Porter and Coulter's Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado altogether favorably. Daniel Cady Eaton in his review4 had criticized the Synopsis in several particulars. Coulter's spirit of independence may have asserted itself at this early age. However, the best explanation was Coulter's own account—an unintentional error. Though Gray severely handled Coulter during his maturing years as a botanist, never did Coulter's admiration and esteem for the great botanist cease or even lessen. A friend, probably Harvey Young, told Coulter that he had sent Gray specimens of Sullivantia from Indiana and Coulter believed nothing further should be done than communicate the "find" to the American Naturalist. So far as Coulter's presumably first letter to Gray is concerned, the most significant feature about it is the total absence of any men­ tion of one of his cherished plans, the founding of a botanical journal at Hanover. Perhaps this plan was suddenly projected during the autumn of 1875 when Gnivri, a Hanover college and literary journal s

Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist., VI (1856-1859), 418. Contained in vol. VII, third series (1874), p. 520. Eaton was Professor of Botany at Yale University, probably a former instructor of Frank H. Bradley and Edward Thomson Nelson, Coulter's first teachers in botany. 4

The Indiana Flora

31

published every two weeks, made its first appearance. Coulter may have gotten the idea of a botanical journal from this, as the first issue of the Botanical Bulletin was in the same month and same year, No­ vember 1875. Coulter explained the Bulletin's object in its first para­ graph : With a good deal of diffidence we present this first copy of the Bulletin to our botanical friends. When the science of Natural History in all its depart­ ments has so many able journals devoted to its advancement, it would appear like presumption in us to make what may seem a useless addition to the list. Our aim at present, however, is by no means so lofty, but is simply to afford a convenient and rapid means of communication among botanists. Our little sheet is intended to be devoted to botanical discoveries and observations, and it is hoped that botanists will make use of it. The New England States and New York are well supplied with such means of communication, but we do not doubt that there are many interesting finds and notes of those States that are only waiting some such opportunity as this to be presented to the botanical world. We do not wish, therefore, to be considered as setting up ourselves against our Eastern friends, but rather as supplementing their good work and aiding them, as far as is in our power, in the discovery of truth, after which we are all striving. We will assure our friends, who desire to make use of this sheet, of a wide circulation among botanists of such notes as they may send us. We shall welcome notes from all botanists and urge them to send us at once such articles as they wish published that they may appear in as early a number as possible. The Bulletin will be published every month and will be enlarged as necessity may demand. Hoping botanists will heartily approve of our under­ taking and show their appreciation of our efforts by a contribution of notes, we leave the Bulletin in their hands.—Editor.

There was certainly one botanist in America who approved— Thomas Conrad Porter. Of the four notes contained on the four sheets of the first issue, Porter contributed two or was instrumental in the composition of two—a note on Gentiana quinquefiora, Lam. and a "List of Plants collected in the Black Hills during the summer of 1874." Coulter received the collection of General Custer's Expedi­ tion to the Black Hills during the summer of 1874 from Professor N. H. Winchell of Minnesota. He reported on the plants,5 made vip a bare list for the Bulletin, sent "species, of uncertain determination" to Porter, agreeing therewith to note thereafter any change in the list should any be necessary. No changes were necessary but the origi­ nal publication of Coulter's list was made subject to revision by Por5 See Colonel William Ludlow's Refort of a Reconnaissance of the Black Hills of Dakotay Washington, Gov't Printing· Office, 1875, pp. 67-70, where Coulter said the plants were arranged "in the order of Gray."

32

John Merle Coulter

ter. Porter therefore is regarded as having had a part in the determi­ nations. He probably had much to do with Coulter's change to the department of natural sciences. The 1874-1875 circular of Hanover College acknowledged: The Herbarium has been greatly enlarged by the following contributions: A large set of nearly 600 species of Pennsylvania flora by Prof. Thos. C. Porter, D.D., of Lafayette Coll., Pa. The entire collection of Gen'l Custer's Expedition to the Black Hills, made by Prof. Donaldson of Minnesota, and classified by Prof. Coulter of Hanover College. A large collection from Fort Bridger and the Uintah Mountains, made principally by Dr. Porter while in connection with Hayden's Survey of 1873, and received from the Agricultural Department at Washington, D.C. A complete set of the flora of Colorado from collections made by Prof. J. M. Coulter of Hanover College while Bot­ anist of the Hayden Expedition. A full set of the local flora.

From this, two deductions are certain. Porter did all he could to aid Coulter. And Coulter had begun to build a representative her­ barium. In the first issue of the Bulletin, the other two notes had to do with the Indiana flora—seemingly a principal reason Coulter had in founding his publication. One was a note by him on Aster NovaeAngliae near Hanover. The other was entitled "Notes on Certain Species of the Genus Asplenium" by A. Harvey Young who for some time had been making botanical exchanges and was busying himself, when possible, writing up the flora of the southern Indiana region. Young had been principal of the preparatory department of Hanover College, later went into business, but in 1879 returned to the faculty where he remained until his death in 1926. Coulter, Young, and Porter continued to be the main supports of the Bulletin and in January 1876 M. Stanley Coulter was added as a contributor with a note on the size of forest trees in Jefferson Coun­ ty. The expense of publication, the composition, proofreading, and all of the business management was borne by John Merle but as the Bulletin grew in size the printing of it had to be transferred to Logansport where Stanley supervised proofreading under John Merle's direction. From the West and Middle West came contributors such as James Wilson, G. C. Broadhead, Dr. H. C. Beardslee, Frank H. Turrill, Herbert E. Copeland, Howard Shriver, C. F. Wheeler, and fi­ nally in January of 1877, George Engelmann. From the East came contributors, probably many gotten by Porter, such as Dr. Joseph

The Indiana Flora

33

Trimble Rothrock, Coe F. Austin, E. A. Rau, George Vasey, A. P. Garber, and in April 1878, Asa Gray. Gray's first real contribution ap­ peared as a leading article in May, of that year, under the title, "The Two Wayside Plantains." In this article Gray began, "I wish to call the attention of Botanists to the Common Plantains of the country " With Engelmann in the West and Gray in the East contributing, the future success of Coulter's publication was assured. For two long years he had waited for this encouragement. Two long years he had re­ viewed the leading recent publications, always including reviews of the work of Gray and Watson and other leading botanists of the country. The arrival of I. C. Martindale as a contributor was impor­ tant. With him Coulter was to have future work. Elihu Hall's rec­ ognition from the neighboring state of Illinois meant much. From the far West came contributions from Edward Lee Greene, himself later to become the publisher of a botanical journal at his own ex­ pense, Pittonia. The list of American botanists became substantially complete when Engelmann's and Gray's notices or articles became fairly regular in their arrival. William James Beal, Daniel Cady Eaton, Joseph Charles Arthur, Charles Edwin Bessey, and most of the principal North American botanists sent Coulter contributions which realized the ambitions of the editors John Merle and Stanley Coulter, "to make the Gazette a necessity to Botanists." In October 1876, within a month of the first year of its publication, the name of the Botanical Bulletin was changed to Botanical Gazette because of possible confusion with the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. The Torrey Bulletin was the senior in age of the Gazette by almost six years, having been founded in January of 1870. As Coulter said in the definition of its "Object," the Gazette, how­ ever, was founded primarily to be a journal of botany of the Middle West and West. Indiana's botany had not been explored with any real thoroughness. The first explorations had been along the Ohio River, more especially near the Falls of the Ohio, at Louisville. The famous New Harmony colony with its number of earnest scientific workers had contributed to exploration but not until Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz visited the colony did the pioneer bo­ tanical systematization begin. Coulter regarded Rafinesque as In­ diana's pioneer botanist. Frangois Andre Michaux, David Thomas, Thomas Nuttall and a few others of the very early explorers had

34

John Merle Coulter

done some collecting of botanical specimens in Indiana. Most impor­ tant, however, was John Leonard Riddell who published a flora of western states which included some 1,802 species among which were all the known Indiana plants. Of course, there were others such as Increase Allen Lapham who for a time lived in Ohio and then in Louisville. Charles Wilkin Short, also from Louisville, doubtless did some Indiana exploring. George Engelmann, Ellsworth Jerome Hill, and Jacob Schneck may be added. But until the Coulters' time there were not many and the collections were first in flowering plants and later in lichens, liverworts, and mosses.6 During Christmas vacation of the year 1875 Coulter was called to New Albany, Indiana, to arrange "the valuable and extensive Her­ barium" of Dr. A. Clapp, then deceased. Coulter obtained duplicates of the entire collection and seeing many marked "Barrens" he was fired with a desire to explore there. The July previous he had spent a few weeks in Carroll County, in northern Indiana, and had been much pleased with the rich counties bordering the Wabash River. "The Wabash Valley has never been botanically explored and a rich harvest is waiting to be reaped," concluded Coulter. Young and he had each published partial lists of the flora of Jefferson County and were continuing to add to the list. But their ambitions were carrying them into wider fields. It was the fashion in botany of those times, a part of the predominantly taxonomic period, to find a region where the flora was unknown and systematize it. John and Stanley Coulter had found themselves in a region comparatively unknown. With as­ sociates such as Young and a few others, they could take over the superintendence of a systematization of much of Indiana's flora, if not of its entirety. The Gazette would be afforded favorable ma­ terials. They themselves would immediately acquire reputations as botanists. There were many regions not thoroughly and several areas not at all explored. There was the "Knobs" of southern Indiana, a near-approach to a mountain range, a remarkable line of hills in Floyd, Clark, Scott, Jackson, and Lawrence counties. There were the Ohio River banks. There were the "Barrens." In 1877 t^e Ga­ zette published "Some Plants of the Lower Wabash," by Jacob Schneck of Mt. Carmel, Illinois, additions to the already published 6 John M. Coulter, "A Century of Botany in Indiana." Address given before the Indiana Academy of Sciences, Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci., 1916, pp. 236-240.

The Indiana Flora

35

"Catalogue of the Flora of the Lower Wabash Valley" published by the Geological Survey in 1875. Late in 1877 Coulter undertook to go by way of the "Knobs" to the "Barrens." He was disappointed with the results of the journey, since civilization had much changed the area since Dr. Clapp had visited it. Exploration, however, con­ tinued. During the college year 1873-1874, presumably there had come to Hanover College a most brilliant pupil—Charles Reid Barnes. We know he was a sophomore the next year. He was the son of a super­ intendent of schools at Madison, Indiana, a man long interested in the destiny of Hanover College. Young Barnes had probably been attracted to botany for some time and during the school year 18751876 began to study the subject with Coulter using Gray's texts. At any rate, by the year 1877, his studies of botany continuing, he be­ came a contributor of notes and articles of a taxonomic nature to the Gazette and that summer went to the prairies of northwestern Mis­ souri where he wrote up some "Notes on the Flora of Clinton Coun­ ty." In March 1878 the Hanover College Monthly announced "that C. R. Barnes will teach a private school here, on account of the short­ ness of the public term," and next month the Gazette noticed a Cata­ logue of the Phaenogamous and Vascular Cryftogamous Plants found growing wild in Jefferson County, compiled by Charles R. Barnes, to which was added a short list of plants by John F. Baird, plants growing in Clark County. There is some reason for believing that Barnes's father, also named Charles Barnes, wrote much of this Cata­ logue but since the elder Barnes died in the year 1869 such author­ ship is doubted. The elder Barnes was a trustee of Hanover College. Also a student, he may have helped his son. It was, however, the younger Barnes's work and, numbering 912 species, it provided "a valuable check list" of Jefferson County plants. During the Christmas holidays of 1877 Barnes made a visit to the home of Stanley Coulter at Logansport who that year had married one of the teachers in his school, Lucy Post. Barnes was by then a graduate of Hanover College, having graduated with the Class of of '77. Eventually he became a teacher of biology in the Ford High School at Lafayette. And when Professor Hussey of Purdue Uni­ versity suffered a stroke of paralysis, Barnes was called upon to serve

36

John Merle Coulter

in his place at the university. This led in turn to a permanent ap­ pointment in 1882. John Merle Coulter was delighted with young Barnes and took him into his plans for compilation of an Indiana flora. In the January 1879 issue of the Gazette, Coulter published: Having been occupied mostly with the flora of that part of Indiana border­ ing upon the Ohio river, I have often looked longingly upon the map of the state at the northern tier of counties, bordering upon Michigan lake and state, and well filled with small lakes and tamarack swamps. It seemed as if some of our best plants must be found there, and in my preparation for publishing a catalogue of the flora of the state, I could find no report or no working botanist from that region. Last summer an opportunity presented itself of making a hasty survey for myself and the result was most encouraging. Although many very excellent species were obtained, the richest result to my mind was the fine prospect of good things that might reward a diligent search, rather than those that were actually obtained. Accompanied by my enthusiastic pupil and assistant, Mr. Chas. R. Barnes, I spent some three or four weeks along the line of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad, which crosses the state exactly in the region I wished to traverse. The Kankakee river forms a natural boundary on the south side of the northwestern corner of this region, a slow, sluggish stream as it crosses Indiana, but rapid enough in Illinois. . . . To the east lie the headwaters of the St. Joseph and Tippecanoe rivers, both of which are lost in an intricate system of small lakes, reminders of the time when one enormous lake covered it all. . . . The time of our visit was rather unfortunate for the best results, too early for the best fall flowers and too late for the spring ones, and we had to note the former in bud and the latter in fruit, but we saw enough to know that the region was well worth a thorough exploration at different seasons. The wildest, most unfrequented parts of it we did not even reach, as they were too inaccessible for our limited time, but what we heard of them made us expect great things. We noticed five well defined classes into which it would be possible and convenient to divide the flora of this region. I. First there is the flora of the sand hills and plains bordering upon Lake Michigan . . . II. The second division is the flora of the wet grassy meadows and choked up swamps . . . III. The flora of the lakes proper . . . IV. The flora of the tamarack and sphagnous swamps . . . V. The prairie flora . . . In conclusion, I would request that all botanists of Indiana, or those who have worked in Indiana, communicate with me in regard to the catalogue of the state flora, that it may be made as full and complete as possible upon the first issue.

In 1881 there appeared a Catalogue of the Phaenogamous and Vascular Cryptogamous Plants of Indiana, published by the Editors

The Indiana Flora

37

of the Botanical Gazette and Charles R. Barnes, a publication of three introductory pages and thirty-eight pages of descriptive material. It was issued as an extra with the Gazette and in 1882 a Supplement of three pages was published. This was the first important botanical publication of either John Merle or Stanley Coulter, or of Charles Reid Barnes. It divided the Indiana regions according to the river valleys, the lake borders, the prairies, and the "barrens." 1,432 species grouped under 577 genera composed the then known flora of Indiana. John Merle Coulter during this period had accomplished two cred­ itable works in botany—the establishment of a nation-wide botanical journal, the Botanical Gazette, and the delineation in catalogue form of the flora of Indiana. In June 1879 the board of trustees of Hano­ ver College appropriated $500 for purchase of Coulter's "valuable herbarium, containing many thousand specimens of the Rocky Moun­ tain expedition[s]" and $300 for shelving and other expenses of the department of natural sciences. The purchase was never completed. Coulter announced to the board at their meeting of July 8 of that year that he had accepted a chair at Wabash College, Indiana.

CHAPTER IV THE YEARS AT WABASH COLLEGE

"^^e a s h , another Presbyterian college, is located at Crawfordsville about forty miles west of Indianapolis. It does not have the beauty of location which Hanover College has, although Coulter believed that no college of equal extent in the United States could surpass its campus in the display of native plants. It was to him anoth­ er natural botanic garden. Although it then had one principal build­ ing, the entire college had more buildings and, being larger and with­ out the seemingly ever persistent problems of finance that Hanover had, was more progressive. Attempts had been made to merge the two Presbyterian schools but Hanover College had always won its strug­ gles for existence independent of all institutions except the Presbyte­ rian Synod to which it was accountable. As a matter of fact, one of Coulter's reasons for leaving Hanover may have been to aid the college financially. Hanover was having a hard time. Its teaching number had been increased and teachers' salaries had been enlarged to twelve hundred dollars a year, more than the finances of the col­ lege could allow. President George C. Heckman resigned, or was forced to resign, because he could not support his family on a reduced salary. Coulter had a wife and three children, another child in pros­ pect, the Ga%ette to finance, and the expenses of continued study to maintain. He, too, resigned as the resignations meant reductions in salary without embarrassment for the college. Never did Coulter show dissatisfaction or plan to leave Hanover because of narrow­ ness of viewpoint. The Coulters loved Hanover. Hanover stood for what Coulter then believed. Science was the instrument of theology. Coulter had had an opportunity to affirm this belief. The event of the college calendar in 1877 had been an address by Coulter delivered before Union Literary Society on the occasion of its forty-seventh anniversary. A month before the date of the lecture, the Hanover College Monthly had announced Coulter's acceptance. Not only was the address separately printed and also published in full in the Monthly but for months after its delivery the college paper called for addresses like it. "When are we going to have some lectures in Hanover?" said the paper. "We have had but one lecture during this

The Years at Wabash College

39

college year, and with that everyone was delighted, and Prof. Coul­ ter has been repeatedly invited elsewhere to deliver his lecture, yet who in Hanover has requested him to favor us again?" The address was delivered in the church on December 10 and was entitled, "The World's Work." Effortful and lengthy, indeed youthful, the address said in part:1 . . . When we glance back over the centuries of the Christian era, we are accustomed to wonder at the sluggishness of the first eighteen centuries, and at the wonderfully rapid advances made in the last few years. There may be a cause back of this that we do not often think of. What is the first tendency of science just springing into birth? Immediately there rush to the foremost rank enthusiasts who are so carried away by their zeal for investigation that they forget the existence of a higher power than themselves and the laws they have discovered—deny, in fact, the existence of everything that they can not subject to the scrutiny of their microscopes. These leaders have a numerous following, more determined in their erratic notions than they, for with less knowledge comes greater dogmatism. We most heartily regret, then, to be compelled to say that the tendency of science, still in its swaddling clothes, is to materialism. The very methods of scientific investigation form habits of thought that seem inconsistent with religious ideas. Of course the germ of true science will eventually burst through this enveloping husk of hastily-formed opinions, and develop into a noble and beautiful growth. But what effect would such ideas have had upon a world unenlightened and unintrenched by the everlasting truths of the Bible? Would not the introduction of Christianity have been more bitterly opposed than it was? But when, in the creeping centuries, religious ideas and beliefs had become firmly established in the minds and hearts of men, then science began its life, and its first puny struggles for mastery cause not the slightest tremor in the rock-grounded temple of religion; and when its older, stronger growth shall come, its more perfect knowledge will compel it, too, to enter in and worship. It is painful to me to hear some Christian teachers, wearied, probably, by the struggle to defend the Bible against skeptical oppressors, say that the Scriptures were only intended to set forth religious truth, and scientific inaccuracies, if discovered, would prove nothing against them. . . .

Had Coulter gone no further than this viewpoint, one might find in it the seeds of the great progressivism with which he later became linked in the supposed struggle of science and religion. Difficulty was being experienced by theologues in reconciling the Genesis story of creation with proven facts of geologic history. Darwin's Origin of Species and the theory of evolution had produced heated contro­ versy in biology and its kindred branches of science, zoology and bot­ any. And Coulter fearlessly strode like a knight into the arena. 1 Hanover

College Monthly, I, no. 4 (January 1878), pp. 73-84.

40

John Merle Coulter

Reviewing in quick order the world's work in physics, chemistry, astronomy, and medicine, he arrived at biology, saying: Biology is full of zealous workers. "The Origin of Life" and the "Devel­ opment of Species" are questions of today, and their investigation and discussion are bringing us in rich harvests of knowledge, for which we can never be too grateful. The wonderful uniformity in design, running through the whole animal kingdom, and the equally wonderful adaptation of parts to circum­ stances and habits of life, prove to the Christian philosopher the existence of one Designer of infinite skill; but to a certain school of modern philosophers they prove the existence of an inherent power of development. But how did that power of development originate? That is the question, and they have searched earth, air and sea in vain for the answer. Not long ago, the scientific world was startled by the statement that at last the origin of life had been discovered in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, the original protoplasmic cells had been collected, and under the sounding name of Bathybius frince-ps the poor little monad was ushered into the world. A chemist procured a specimen of this mysterious jelly, analyzed it, and Io! our Bathybius was nothing but the sulphate of lime, or gypsum, as dead as the everlasting rocks. Any of you can make it, by soaking plaster of paris for a long time in water. This is all that Nature has told us of the origin of life. . . .

More than once Coulter was to repent of this paragraph. Scientific investigation would many times show evidence not confirming a "won­ derful uniformity in design," not confirming a "wonderful adapta­ tion of parts to circumstances and habits of life." And yet never once would he have to shrink from his belief in "one Designer of infinite skill." A little more study and he would not have used a reductio ad absurdum to prove that science not yet had accounted for the origin of life, not yet had science shown in adequate, new, convincing terms the original or first cause of creation. Asa Gray would teach him soon that design was like the concept of Providence, a philosophical con­ cept, and the difference between concept and proof. Gray abounded with teleological explanations in his writings. Indeed, Gray himself wrote in 1875 to G. Frederick Wright, ". . . The important thing to do, is to develop aright evolutionary teleology, and to present the argument for design from these exquisite adaptations in such a way as to make it tell on both sides; with Christian men, that they may be satisfied with, and perchance may learn to admire, Divine works effected step by step, if need be, in a system of nature; and the antitheistic people, to show that without the implication of a superintend-

The Years at Wabash College

41

ing wisdom nothing is made out, and nothing credible."2 Gray real­ ized, in essence, that evolutionary belief with concepts of Providence, of design, evolution in great part as Darwin conceived it—a modifica­ tion of species derived one from another—was possible, and in large part as acceptable to scientific proof as evolutionary belief without the theological concepts. The evolution principle or theory was for furposes of science the essential. In other words, Gray was incontrovertibly a theist. And Coulter had not yet attained to such belief. Young John Merle Coulter, twenty-six years of age, was still affirming the God of the theologians of that day, was still approaching science seeing a "wonderful uniformity in design, running through the whole animal kingdom, and the equally wonderful adaptation of parts to circum­ stances and habits of life," a philosopher seeking -proof of such. Said he: And as to the successive development of species, upon what does that rest? Here we speak more respectfully, for we are treading upon the confines of truth. Species do run together, so that sometimes an animal or plant is found that seems to unite in itself the characters of two or more species. All life exhibits a certain power of adaptation to surrounding conditions, and our classi­ fication into species is more or less conventional. . . . All nature is being raked and scraped for the varying forms of life. Of course, the gradual devel­ opment of one species from another must require a tremendous stretch of time, and the upholders of this theory coolly demand an unlimited series of years— in short, as has been aptly said, a "carte blanche" on eternity. Naturally, then, they are driven to search for their proofs in the geologic record, for there only can they be accommodated with the time they demand. This record is bound to be imperfect, for, as full as it is, we can not expect it to have pre­ served even a tithe of the forms of life that once inhabited our globe, and then we have examined but little of the record that has been left us; These modern biologists, with audacious boldness, assert that the geological record is im­ perfect, but that if it was complete it would prove their theory without the shadow of a doubt! Think of it! What a foundation upon which to rear the imposing superstructure of evolutionism, a foundation whose cornerstone is an if] . . .

One wonders if by this paragraph Coulter was denying the truth of evolution. Very likely not. Considering all portions of the address, one must conclude that Coulter was not negating evolution or claim­ ing it to be false. He was merely saying that the proof for evolution was not yet in. Evolution was still an hypothesis, a theory, not yet 2 Letters of Asa Gray, edited by Jane Loring Gray (Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1893), II, 6J 6.

42

John Merle Coulter

substantiated fully in laboratories. Darwin had adduced, and was continuing to present, a wealth of illustrative material which pointed to its truth. Others of his followers were doing likewise. But the most that could be said was that a strong presumption had been raised in its favor. Many of the leading scientists of the day died without ever becoming believers in the theory. Many were indifferent or poked fun at it. It remained for further investigation to establish it as a truth on which science in the large proceeded. It remained for experimental work such as that of the great Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries to enlighten further science's insight into evolution. One need go no further to show Coulter's immaturity as a scientist. One might point to his article on "Insectivorous Plants,"3 based on an article in Popular Science Monthly, in which Coulter observed, "When reading of the phenomena that have been observed in con­ nection with these strange plants, it almost seems as though we were treading on the borders of a new wonderland where plants can eat and move like men, and where Nature, in some rapturous freak of her mysterious wonder-working, has mingled traits that seem too far apart to be found in a single individual. But Nature will never stop doing wonders, and we may hold ourselves in readiness to hear of stranger things than carnivorous plants." One could point to his ar­ ticle on "Insects and Flowers,"4 where he concluded, "Insects act just like skillful gardeners. They select the largest, most brilliant and most fragrant flowers, and, by means of this natural selection, the stock is always kept good and even improves in all its attractive features." One might resort to his article, "A Glimpse Into the Past,"5 and show his littleness of knowledge in geologic history, paleon­ tology and paleobotany. His concluding line read, "We may con­ gratulate ourselves . . . with the thought that we are living on about the oldest spot of land between the Green Mountains and Eastern Asia." It must be remembered that none of these articles had to do with the Latin or Greek languages, or their literature. Had Coulter written of these, doubtless the articles would have shown rare, mature ex­ cellence. Or, had they been concerned with the library or its work, they s Gnwri

(December 4, 1875), I, no. 3, pp. 34-35. College Monthly, I (October 1877), no - *> P- 6· Ibid. (December 1877), I, no. 3, pp. 52-54.

i Hanover 5

The Years at Wabash College

43

would have shown a scholarly interest and insight. In Gnivri, Coulter published an article on "The Library—Old and Rare Books," and it was one of the best works of his early career.6 In science, as in his early Latin and Greek studies, Coulter was in large part self-educated. Hanover College had no scientific laboratories except in chem­ istry and natural philosophy and the equipment for these subjects was meager. There was a cabinet for geology. Coulter built an her­ barium for botany. The equipment for scientific studies in geology and botany was solely taxonomic. As taxonomy was known, it was devoted solely to naming and describing natural history objects— plants, rocks, insects, animals, etc. The era of learning what nature possesses is not finished even today. No one could deny, even today, that Coulter did not excel in the botanical side of taxonomy. The first years of the Botanical Gazette were dedicated almost entirely to taxonomic work, except as reviews of current publications or occa­ sional contributions from other authors varied the systematic work. Coulter's contributions, except a few containing immature observa­ tions on natural phenomena of the Hanover region, were all of a systematic character. Coulter read works of more learned scientists that came to the Gazette for review. He learned quickly. What he studied, he always studied eagerly and thoroughly. The injury to his knee kept him confined a great deal. He became an ardent, dis­ ciplined, indefatigable worker. Nelson and Bradley, perhaps Porter, may have given him a larger viewpoint than he expressed. Never­ theless, despite his accumulated knowledge, Coulter needed more schooling in botany. He knew what he needed—work at Harvard University under Asa Gray, George Lincoln Goodale, and William Gilson Farlow. Wabash College may have made possible Coulter's going to Har­ vard in the summer of 1879. Whatever the truth is, the fact is that he went. 1879 was the year of the appearance of the sixth edition of Gray's famous Botanical Text-Book, "Structural Botany or Or­ ganography on the basis of Morphology," the first volume to appear on the basis of the enlarged plan of four volumes to the work. Gray had written the first, treating of morphology, taxonomy, and phytography. Dr. Goodale was preparing the second volume, to treat of the neglected but developing subjects of vegetable physiology and 6I

(December 4, 1875), no. 3, pp. 38-39.

44

John Merle Coulter

anatomy. Dr. Farlow was to prepare an introduction to cryptogamic botany. And in the fourth volume, Gray wrote, that he hoped rather than expected "to draw up," a work on the morphology and economic use of the natural orders of phaenogamous plants. Coulter had studied the fifth edition of the Botanical Text-Book, an "Introduction to Structural and Systematic Botany, and Vegetable Physiology," published in 1857.7 Indeed, his course under Frank Bradley had had the title, "Botany, Structural and Systematic," with Gray as the author used in the course. Doubtless Coulter became acquainted with the intervening works of the great author, "How Plants Grow," the "Lessons," "Field, Forest, and Garden Botany," "How Plants Behave," and other works of a similar nature. Certainly he was acquainted with Gray's famous Manual of the Botany of the Northern States and had thoroughly studied its contents. In reviews for the Gazette he had carefully analyzed the various "Contributions to American Botany" as they appeared in pamphlet form or in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Gray's notes appearing from time to time in the American Journal of Science and Arts, his reviews of works of foreign authors, had received his careful scrutiny. But, amazing as it may seem, it must be remem­ bered that the "Introduction to Structural and Systematic Botany" which Coulter had studied at Hanover had antedated the publication of Darwin's Origin of S-pedes and what knowledge of evolution Coulter received was self-taught. There was an edition of the same work published by the same publishers in 1865 and having the same general plan. Gray, however, did not review Darwin's work until March 1860. Years followed confirming and qualifying, in important instances amplifying, the studies of Darwin. Consequently, it was some time before Gray's texts were revised to include comprehen-i sively the findings of the theory of natural selection. Even though Bradley's class, or any of Coulter's classes, may have used the 1865 (or i860) issue of the 1857 edition, Gray had not changed the text to give colleges far from Harvard with comparatively poor means of communication his general interpretation of Darwinism. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism, by Gray, was 7 This was the first fifth edition of the work. In i860 there was a second issue, evidently, which remained much the same. This issue may have been dated 1865 but Mrs. Gray in the Letters gives i860.

The Years at Wabash College

45

not published until 1876. No copious review of it was given in the Gazette. It is clear that Coulter arrived at Harvard, even as late as 1879, with very little knowledge of the evolutionary theory. He knew tax­ onomy. (He knew nearly all of Gray's works in this branch of botany.) But his knowledge of morphology, and the principles revolutioniz­ ing its study, his knowledge of "vegetable physiology," his knowl­ edge of anatomy of plants was of small compass. It is said that Stan­ ley Coulter, while a student of Hanover, had gotten a copy of the Origin of Sfecies surreptitiously and was persuaded to surrender it by the authorities of the school. John Merle Coulter, however, seems not to have responded wholeheartedly to evolution. On becoming acquainted with the theory in general he had sought immediately to reconcile the hypotheses of the Genesis story of creation with what he understood evolution to be. Coming superficially into contact with Gray's teleological beliefs he had immediately suffused them with his own observations. For observation was still the basic method of science. Experimentation·, the method gaining ground with great momentum in chemistry and physics, had not reached, except in isolated instances, the science of botany. In American botany there were less than half a dozen botanical laboratories, employing, in addition to taxonomic facilities, the methods of experimentation in analysis of plants. In 1873, having added a year and a half previously an adjoining building to his home and the herbarium building, Gray had opened his botanical laboratory to students of the summer school as well as advanced students. He had given a last course of university lectures and, gradually placing responsibilities with George Lincoln Goodale, retired from teaching. Sereno Watson, though not to teach, was placed in charge of systematic work; Goodale took charge of teaching botany and physiology; and Farlow, on his return in 1874 from studies in European laboratories with Anton De Bary, J. Miiller, Bornet and Thuret, had become assistant professor of botany and in 1879 pro­ fessor of cryptogamic botany. (Note: Farlow's interpretation and description of work in the European laboratories and its effect on American botanical research was contained in an address delivered as retiring president of the Botanical Society of America at Cleveland, January 1, 19x3, "The Change from the Old to the New Botany in the United States," Science, n.s., XXXVII [ 1913], pp. 79-86.)

φ

John Merle Coulter

Under shadow of comparison with the great work done by Gray and Farlow at Harvard, the work of Goodale has been very much underrated. Coulter said of him, "Professor Goodale will stand prob­ ably as the greatest teacher of botany in the early days, when botany was beginning to extend its range, and laboratory work began to be a feature. He was a pioneer in this extension"8 which eventually led to the great differentiations between the work of taxonomy, the work of morphology, the work of physiology, and other branches of the science known today. Goodale was a graduate of Amherst College but, like Gray and Farlow and most of the early prominent botanists, had become a doctor of medicine, receiving his M.D. degree from Harvard in 1863. For a time, 1869-1872, he had been an instructor at Bowdoin College and then accepted the position offered at Har­ vard. Interested primarily in teaching and the acquisition of material equipment for his departments, he disseminated an influence, first in plant physiology, and later in economic botany, in improvement and cultivation of plants useful to man, that was unparalleled in the uni­ versity's history, in some respects unparalleled in the nation's history. Later when Harvard University decided to establish a botanic sta­ tion for tropical research and sugar cane investigation on the Atkins sugar estate at Soledad, Cienfuegos, Cuba—the first venture of this kind instituted by American agencies in the western hemisphere— it was Goodale who fathered the plan and directed in great part its valuable experimental work. When the great museum building was built at Harvard Goodale planned and in great part raised the money to build what is today the central section. There he established a bo­ tanical museum devoted largely to the interests of economic bot­ any, containing the unique and incomparably beautiful and famous Ware Collection of Blascha Glass Models of Plants by which he hoped to parallel in plant life an arrangement of mounted animals in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Today this collection has spec­ imens illustrating 164 families of flowering plants, a selected group of cryptogamic plants showing complicated life histories, a group of models expressive of the relation of insects to the transference of pollen and a group of rosaceous fruits descriptive of the effect of fungus diseases. The plants and products of plants useful to man were dear to the heart of Goodale and, in the course of his years of influ8

Botanical Gazette, LXXVII (March-June 1924), 453.

The Years at Wabash College

47

ence with Coulter, he must have impressed the younger botanist with the importance of developing botany as a pure science—also, he saw the importance of making the study of botany a national asset, a useful science. Gray regarded Goodale "as a dear friend and a very valuable man." He was also such in the life of John Merle Coulter. In 1879, Coulter, the newly appointed professor at Wabash Col­ lege, presented himself at "Profjessor] Goodale's summer school" and became much interested in a study of the various distribution of fibrovascular bundles in stems, in roots, in petioles, in the leaves of Coniferae. Before the school year, 1877-1878, Goodale had offered courses in elementary botany and advanced botany with lectures and laboratory practice. However, during the year 1878-1879, Goodale inaugurated his unique course in American botany, "Experimental Vegetable Physiology," a course which met twice a week during the first year and during 1879-1880 was increased to three times a week. For years Goodale had experimented. In the years when Dionaea, an insectivorous plant, was receiving so much attention at the hands of Darwin, Gray, and William M. Canby (a resident of Wilmington, Delaware, especially interested in Dionaea and Drosera), Goodale studied with Professor Trowbridge in the botanical laboratory of Har­ vard the electrical currents in plants, particularly Dionaea. No re­ sults of significance attached to the studies and so mention of them was not made until about 1879. Goodale was not what might be termed a "research scientist." Obviously, he must have admired and encouraged research work but he was primarily a lecturer and teacher. He regarded himself as a plant physiologist rather than taxonomist. His experiments were largely illustrative, exercises dedicated to teaching plant phenomena. His fame must dwell in the fact that he stimulated others to carry forward the problems of pure research. Even when his part on physiological botany in Gray's Botanical TextBook was completed, the work dealt with "histological anatomy, ecology, and caliology, as well as physiology proper."9 The Gazette said of the work: . . . The practical exercises, which form a separately-paged appendix to the volume, will serve a good purpose in the laboratory work of the student. They contain many valuable hints as to materials for study, and enumerate 9 Joseph Charles Arthur, "Development of Vegetable Physiology," Botanical Gazette, XX (1895), 381 ff.

48

John Merle Coulter

the more important physiological experiments that can be performed by a skillful manipulation in a well-equipped chemical and physical laboratory, in­ cluding also a large number which require only a little skill and less apparatus. . . .10

In 1881 Goodale went abroad and while there took great in­ terest in the research experiments of Pfeffer, of Sachs, who ad­ vised him concerning apparatus, in the work of Pringsheim, Wiesner, and many others. He returned with new sets of laboratory exercises for his students, many of which probably were included in the exercises of his Physiological Botany. In 1883 he imported from Germany a number of pieces of valuable apparatus for phys­ iological investigation. "It is the only collection of the kind in this country," said the Gazette,11 "and on account of its expensiveness will doubtless be so for some time." Goodale's laboratory exer­ cised an incalculable influence in the development of plant physiology in America. But later when Goodale's interest was transferred to economic botany, dust gathered on the apparatus and eventually most of it fell into disuse. In a sense, it was the first of the ex­ perimental botanical laboratories established in America, since it was a part of Gray's taxonomic laboratory which did both taxonomic and physiological work. Gray's interest at most was morphology and tax­ onomy. He took little interest in the studies of plant diseases and mycology. Those studies went to Farlow by virtue of his knowledge of European laboratory techniques. There were, moreover, in the West the pioneer laboratories of William James Beal at Michigan Agricultural College, Thomas Jonathan Burrill at the University of Illinois, and Charles Edwin Bessey at Iowa Agricultural College. Of the last three, and in this even Goodale's laboratory may be included, Bessey's is regarded as the first experimental American laboratory to teach undergraduate botany, although Burrill had been doing some remarkable investigations in mycology and plant pathology in the methodology of which laboratory processes were most certainly re­ quired. Also, at the University of Michigan, morphological studies of external structures of plants, including experimentation with ob­ servation, date back as far as the period of Alexander Winchell and Mark Harrington. As early as 1856 the catalogue there described 10 11

Botanical Gazette, X (November 1885), no. 11, pp. 392 S. Ibid., VIII (April 1883), no. 4, p. 213.

The Years at Wabash College

49

courses in vegetable anatomy and physiology and principles of classi­ fication, studying, as far as possible, plants in their "immediate pres­ ence" with investigations under the eye of the professor. Coulter was definitely impressed with Goodale as "a man of in­ domitable energy, and his heart is in this work of developing the Gar­ den," he said. "He can keep more irons in the fire at once, and have them all hot, than any gentleman of our acquaintance."12 Coulter re­ turned to Crawfordsville and in the autumn took up his work at Wa­ bash College. Like Hanover, the Wabash curriculum was divided into a classical and a scientific course, and botany was taught as a sophomore subject, entitled "Analysis and Field Work," with a course offered to the juniors of the scientific course, "Lectures and Laboratory Work in Histology." Gray's texts were the basis for all the work. During that winter a tragedy entered the home of the Coulters. Their oldest son, Stanley, age five years, died of typhoid fever. But Margaret, another child, arrived on January 1. So three children, two daughters, Grace and Margaret, and a son, John Gaylord, were still in the family. And Coulter began to make plans someday to build a house for the family on a place where once a pond had been, a pond where Stanley, his brother, when a very young student at Wabash Academy, had ice skated. Coulter's work flourished. When the first flowers arrived, a large class went into the campus and fields near by and gathered from the "garden . . . growing without care under [their] feet," Hydrophyllum, Phacelias, Scilla, three or four Trilliums, five or six species of Ranunculus, several violets, Geranium, Erythronium, Isopyrum, Stylophorum, the early Composites, and many others. On April 6, he wrote Dr. Gray: I really feel very much discouraged over the appearance of your article on Leavenworthia, in fact so discouraged that I would not write about it, feel­ ing that if you dropped me it would be nothing but right. I really never took more pains with an article in my life, determined to have no mistakes, or nothing to mar what I knew was an exceedingly valuable article. And after all I never saw an article in the Gazette look worse! If the Gazette had not been so impecunious I would have cheerfully borne the expense of a reprint. The printer of course was to blame for the crooked lines, but I was to blame for making L. stylosa have a seed vessel two inches wide! I suppose the mistake is so apparent that botanists will readily correct it. 12

Ibid., V, no. 6, p. 62.

50

John Merle Coulter

I enclose a note from Meehan, simply to ask whether I shall print such stuff. If there was only a fling at you & Prof. Eaton, I think I would suppress it, but he tries to slap me, & I rather enjoy printing a fling at myself when it don't hurt. I called his article "stuff" & will take the consequences. The Ga%ette has many more subscribers than ever before & the encouraging part of it is that new subscribers are those who have never heard of it before. They have taken hold so energetically that my sets are exhausted in supplying the demand for back vol[ume]s.

Between Gray and Coulter there seemed to be a good spirit. Gray more than once had criticized Coulter. His criticisms appeared in some instances on the pages of the Gazette, as when Gray called Coul­ ter to time, asking, "In the case of a double corolla of a garden Cam­ panula, mentioned in the Gazette, p. 200, were the lobes of the two corollas opposed to or alternate with each other? If the latter (which is the common case) why is it said to be a case of chorisis? Then what is Campanula media, L? We never heard or read of such a Linnaean species. Probably Campanula Medium, L. was meant. This the old herbalists called Medium, and so Linnaeus adopted this name for the species, not as an adjective, but as a proper name."13 The issue pre­ vious Gray had asked, "Who finds white partridge-berries?"14 Coul­ ter, after the Campanula observations of Gray, placed an article styled, "White berried Mitchella re-pens.—Dr. Gray will find an account of the discovery of a white Partridge Berry in the Proceed­ ings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, for 1878, page 383. . . ."15 A good sense of humor obviously prevailed between them. Indeed, Coulter later said that the Gazette's "stimulus was Asa Gray at Harvard, who month by month rebuked, advised and contributed. . . ."16 Gray had so many places calling on him for ar­ ticles one wonders how he found time to make as many contributions as he did. Quite certainly he must have recognized Coulter's inherent worth and merit. In the summer of 18 80 Coulter returned to Harvard for another course of work. This year he became Goodale's laboratory assistant. The work must have been a continuation of the work the year before. Of course, the botanical materials with which Coulter worked very likely were different. And it is quite likely that Gray and he laid plans for future taxonomic studies. Gray went abroad in September 13

Botanical Gazette, IV (September 1879), 207. 15 Ibid., IV (September 1879), 207. IV (August 1879), 190. "A Century of Botany in Indiana," o f . c i t . , p. 240.

ll Ibid., 16

The Years at Wabash College

51

to study in herbaria for work on his Synoftical Flora of North Amer­ ica. And he was not to return to America until November 1881. In the interim, Coulter corresponded with Sereno Watson, having an occasion once to write him and ask why the Gazette had not been fur­ nished with a review copy or notice of volume II of the Botany of California. The American Naturalist, of which Charles Edwin Bessey was botanical editor had had an opportunity to review Watson's work. In fact, Coulter learned of the publication of the long-expected volume II on California's botany by reading the review in the Nat­ uralist. Coulter was much interested in the work of Charles E. Bessey. In truth, Bessey published a book during the year 1880 that was almost epoch-making. Certainly it did more to shape a new destiny in North American Botany than any one single work had up to that time. Without exaggeration, it may be said that Bessey's Botany for High Schools and Colleges was one of the most important works ever published in the annals of the botany of the western hemisphere. Coulter reviewed the book for the Gazette,17 saying: . . . what need is there of another botany? We have Gray's, Wood's, Youman's, etc., almost every publishing house being represented by a botany; surely it is but publisher's rivalry that is throwing this new book upon the market. Even a casual glance will show, however, that we have here no stereo­ typed repetition of books that have gone before, but a new departure in American botanical text books. The time has long past when the study of any of our botanical text books will be sufficient to impart even a general knowledge of the science of botany. Once the study of a little morphology, the learning of a few terms in the glossary, and the analysis of a few flowers was thought to be all the profitable study that botany could furnish students. But this state of things has entirely changed and plants are getting to be recognized as living organisms that have life histories, and that have digestion, nutrition, assimilation, circulation, respiration, reproduction and other func­ tions just as remarkably performed as in animals. The question then arises, is it more profitable to study the plant in its life work, or simply to dissect, or to dissect and name its parts and their probable function. It is evident that we can study plant physiology as well as anatomy, and it is this very thing that has been so long neglected in our schools, neglected from lack of suitable text books. Our great botanists have been systematists as is perhaps natural in a country just developing its flora. . . . Such work is not to be decried, for it is absolutely necessary and well enough as far as it goes, but it is not all of botany. To our country belong some of the finest works on morphology and classification published and they rank as the very highest authorities, but our physiology remains yet to be written. Prof. Goodale has for several years had 17 Botanical

Gazette, V (August and September 1880), nos. 8 and 9, pp. 96 ff.

52

John Merle Coulter

such a work in contemplation, but its publication has been delayed, and now Prof. Bessey is the first to occupy the field. His book is divided into two parts. Part I is upon the subject of General Anatomy and Physiology. Part II treats of Special Anatomy and Physiology. . . . This enables the student to go into the laboratory alone, or rather with the aid of the experience of Prof. Bessey, one of the most successful teachers, and perform satisfactorily all the elementary work in the histological structure of plants. We would most cordially commend the work to the use of all pro­ fessors and students of botany as not only the best American book upon the subjects but the only one.

How much Coulter was writing from his own experience, one must guess. It would seem that in his review of Bessey's book there were echoes from the years at Hanover, study under Goodale, some study in morphology under Gray, and the thrill of reading Bessey's book. Bessey's book was a remarkable adaptation, similar to an Eng­ lish adaptation, of the contents of Julius Sachs's textbook. It con­ cerned itself throughout, as Gray said, "with what the Germans call 'Scientific Botany,'—largely with vegetable anatomy and develop­ ment, and with particular attention to the Lower Cryptogamia." Its general plan was that of Sachs's Lehrbuch. The publishers, it is said, offered the task to Gray but Gray told them to go to Bessey, one of his former students. Charles Edwin Bessey was born in 1845 on a farm near a little town of northern Ohio—Milton—in Wayne County, not far distant from Wooster. He attended a country school where "old-time teach­ ing" methods were used in botany—"the pupil was prepared to 'ana­ lyze and classify' the flowering plants—by first studying some special text book for a few weeks, and then spending as much time as possible in collecting plants. . . . It must be said for this old-fashioned meth­ od," said Bessey later, "that whatever its deficiencies were it did ac­ complish this one thing—it made men acquainted with some of the wild plants of the region. It is true that the more difficult species were judiciously ignored, the pupil giving them no attention since they were said to be 'too difficult' for the beginner . . . we 'shied off' from most of the trees, ferns, and grasses, and all the sedges. We felt that they were quite beyond our possibilities. Then too we paid no atten­ tion whatever to the mosses, the liverworts, the fungi, the lichens, and all the swarm of the freshwater algae, those green growths which abound in the pools, ponds and brooks. But in spite of all this we

The Years at Wabash College

53

learned a good deal about the plants of the fields, the thickets, the swamps and the forests, and in addition we knew where the plants grew, that we did collect and study. . . ."1S Bessey attended Seville Academy and from 1863-1865 Canaan Academy, teaching also during the Canaan years in Ohio public schools. He continued public school teaching in Michigan from 18651868, during intervals studying at Michigan Agricultural College. At times he served as a carpenter or surveyor. In a class of ten, he graduated from the scientific course of the college in 1869,19 having been taught by Albert Nelson Prentiss20 and perhaps becoming ac­ quainted with that remarkable man of vision in botany, William James Beal, the first president of the Society for Promotion of Agricultural Science, a graduate of the University of Michigan who had taught in the East and at the old University of Chicago before going to Michi­ gan Agricultural, and who at intervals had studied at Harvard under Eliot, Agassiz, and Gray at a time when Torrey and Gray stood as unquestioned leaders in American botany—when but a very few, Gray, Daniel Cady Eaton, and perhaps Parry, earned a livelihood from botany. The laboratory method in teaching pursued by Agassiz —direct observation of specimens at hand—impressed Beal and later in an address before Michigan State Teachers' Association entitled, "The New Botany," he challenged old methods and insisted on new, showing plants as living, growing, and multiplying things. This ad­ dress was printed in a little book and exercised great influence toward an enlarged science. Beal was original but because of the beginning character of much of his work in a college, he, except as an early systematist of Michi­ gan, long went comparatively unnoticed. As early as 1877—the year a young genius in natural history, Liberty Hyde Bailey Jr., enrolled as a student at Michigan Agricultural—Beal elaborated results of earlier crossing and improvement efforts in vegetables, grains, and fruits—apples, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, especially. Although agri­ cultural colleges, in instances, had experimental farms studying 18 A lecture or paper on "Field Botany in the Grades and the High Schools," given by Bessey at a later date, unpublished. 19 Bessey received the M.S. degree from this institution in 1872; the Ph.D. degree from Iowa in 1879; and the LL.D. degree from Grinnell College in 1898. 20 See an admirable address by Ernst A. Bessey, "The Teaching of Botany Sixty-five Years Ago," loiua State Coll. Jour. Sci., IX, nos. 2 and 3 (1935), pp. 13 fl.

54

John Merle Coulter

feedings and fertilizers, among botanical scholars in America, Beal had few, if any, serious predecessors seeking to originate new varieties of plants, to increase plant yields, and to make tests for diverse pur­ poses. While studying with Gray, he must have made acquaintance of work in hybridization, for, several years before, Gray's reviews of literature and writings showed an astute knowledge of such, despite the fact he was interested primarily from the taxonomic side. From Gray, Beal must have also gotten a knowledge of a type of morphol­ ogy which stressed roots, stems, and leaves, and an interest in "vege­ table physiology." Teaching in America's oldest agricultural college, his field experiments on a farm covering several hundred acres— dividing the work into plats, practicing crop rotation, conceiving prin­ ciples of selection—extended to include one of America's first college botanical gardens used for instruction and ornamental purposes, hav­ ing trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, flowers in numerous variety, and also separate vegetable and small fruit gardens, orchards, a green­ house, museums—and, most interestingly, a small wild garden of species of grasses and clovers, an arboretum, herbarium, and various other accessories. Beal's importance in Bessey's early teaching years had to do with their conceiving—although, for the most part, inde­ pendently—of principles of a "new botany" and establishing the laboratory method of instruction in middle western schools, using the microscope and studying plants in their growth, their relationships to soil, air, heat, and moisture, their movements, methods of fertiliza­ tion, and all incidents to birth, life, death, and survival. Three months after graduation Bessey left Michigan to engage "in the absorbing work of building up a department of botany in a new college west of the Mississippi River." On a cold February after­ noon he first saw the campus of Iowa Agricultural College at Ames. A few "slender sticks" for trees, one building for the college, an old farm house, and two homes for professors, all in an open field, parts of which were later ploughed up to grow potatoes and corn, brought "a chill of homesickness to the young graduate who had been called from Michigan to the chair of botany and horticulture. These were no days of comfort," said Bessey later. "There were no graceful gravel drives. There were no comfortable walks. There were no gar­ dens. There were no shrubs. . . . Those were the days of beginnings. They were days of small beginnings.

The Years at Wabash College

55

"Inside of the solitary building things were no better. Here was a college without apparatus of any kind. It did not even own a micro­ scope, and as for . . . chemical and physical apparatus . . . it had not yet been bought. A few sheets of illy mounted plants, which were still more illy named constituted the whole of the outfit of the botanical department." Bessey was assigned a "furnished room," having a carpet, two chairs, a table, bureau, washstand, and bedstead. This was his office, library, study, and bedroom for three years. A separate room was as­ signed for classes. In this were cases, in some of which, Bessey said, "were stuffed skins (horrible caricatures of the living creatures), [in] some were desiccated bodies (of insects, spiders, millipedes, etc.) while still others (mainly snakes of a few species, but a great number of in­ dividuals) had been drowned in alcohol and poor whiskey." However, early in March he organized his first college class in botany—about 43 sophomores, among whom were Joseph Charles Arthur and Fran­ cis LeRoy Harvey, two botanists of forthcoming renown. Both prob­ ably, and Arthur especially, were passionately fond of plants and at examination time were "able," Arthur tells, "to give the Latin names of the required fifty specimens by the shadow seen through the mounting paper when the sheets of dried plants were held at the window with the backs turned toward" them. Bessey had begun with a "thorough study of Gray's Lessons ; class exercises in the analysis of cultivated and indigenous plants5 botanical descriptions of species; a course of lectures upon the most important orders; in addition to which each member of the class [was] required to collect, press, mount, and accurately name a set of plants comprising one hundred different species. That was a pretty stiff course for that day," said Bessey, "but I can assure [you] that the work was done, and well done." The class began building an herbarium and soon about 600 species representing in large part Iowa plants were assembled. Confidently they believed they would have the complete state flora soon. In the winter of 1870-1871, however, a compound microscope was pur­ chased, one of the earliest American instruments made by Tolles, the famous Boston lens maker. And in the second year the juniors took up the study of "Vegetable Physiology, Economic Botany and the Elements of Cryptogamic Botany," in which the instructor prepared

56

John Merle Coulter

specimens and allowed his students to look at them through the in­ strument. Bessey had no thought then of allowing the students them­ selves to use the microscope. The course taught a certain further struc­ tural study with "some reference to the general functions of roots, stems, leaves, flowers and seeds." Mainly the more important useful plants were studied. And some lectures were given on parasitic fungi. The project of "Contributions to the Flora of Iowa" was conceived and by 1871 in the fourth biennial report of the trustees, record was made of 588 species of flowering plants and ferns. In January 18 70 Bessey had begun correspondence with Asa Gray. Gray had replied offering valuable aid and suggestions and for Au­ gust 1872, at a meeting of the American Association for the Ad­ vancement of Science when Gray delivered at Dubuque his classic ad­ dress, "Sequoia and Its History,"21 it was arranged the sixty-one year old and the twenty-seven year old botanists should meet. On meet­ ing, they quickly arranged that Bessey should come to Cambridge in November—vacations at Iowa Agricultural being in the winter. Gray treated Bessey with the hospitality he accorded so many botanists dur­ ing his simple, jovial, though at times stormy life. He introduced him to James Dwight Dana at a meeting of the American Academy; to Torrey on occasion of the elderly botanist's last visit to Gray at Cambridge; and he made Bessey to understand that his home, then next to the herbarium building, was to be like his own. Bessey began studying systematic botany with Gray, who required him to draw, and not write, plant structures, using both living and dried specimens. "So I made my careful drawings," said Bessey, "and wrote very little. He preferred that I should allow the draw­ ings to tell the story, and probably this is the reason that to this day I greatly prefer a drawing to a written description. . . . [He would] hand me a puzzling flower with the suggestion that I make out its structure. He never asked me to determine its name. That was of secondary importance. Although that was generally reached, and very easily too, after the structure had been worked out." Gray taught his students (who used microscopes of a good pattern) "how to study dried plants, by the simple device of an old teaspoon filled with wa­ ter and the dried flower to be studied. This was held over an alcohol 21 Selected, Papers of Asa Gray, selected by Charles Sprague Sargent, vol. II (Boston and New York: Houghton, MiiBin and Co., 1889), p. 142.

The Years at Wabash College

57

flame until it boiled, when it could be dissected very easily." Gray gave his last course of lectures while Bessey was there: the following year he retired giving no more lectures of any great consequence to students. The course convinced Bessey that Gray was no "narrow systematist," most of the subjects relating to reproduction among al­ gae, fungi, and mosses, and principles of classification. He required his students to know not only plant "structure, but their morphology also." "Gray was a botanist," Bessey said, "who saw the whole field and appreciated it, and [was] not the mere describer of flowering plants that some have imagined him to be. . . ."22 Bessey returned to Iowa and "deepened" the courses of his in­ struction. Using his own words, "A little laboratory was fitted up in the hallway in the center of the building. Here at an east window on a plain table the single microscope was placed, with bottles of water, alcohol, and other simple reagents, and a supply of specimens of vari­ ous kinds. Plain instructions were given to the whole class in the class­ room, and each student spent an allotted period in this primitive labo­ ratory, with very little oversight or further instruction. Drawings were required, and some descriptive notes, all of which I looked over from time to time. It was crude work but it was a beginning. After this work had been under way a short way I printed the legend 'Bo­ tanical Laboratory' on a sheet of cardboard and boldly nailed it on the door of the little room. This was no doubt the first time this term had been applied to any room in any college or university in the West. I remember how the other professors jeered at it, thinking it a mere bit of boasting or buncombe on my part. But the legend was not taken down, and next year there was more laboratory work, and the name became a fixture."23 Laboratory work at Iowa Agricultural developed studies "in the minute structure of all parts of the plant," and this, in turn, developed a study of rusts, smuts, molds, and other parasitic forms. Arthur grad­ uated with the class of 1872 and began immediately the preparation of a catalogue of Iowa plants for an exhibit of dried specimens at 22Based on and taken from a paper written and read by Bessey November 14, 1910, before the Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska, entitled, "Personal Reminis­ cences of Dr. Gray." 23 "A Summary History of the Department of Botany in the Iowa State College, from 1870 to 1884," by Charles E. Bessey. Again Bessey repeated this claim in "Laying the Foundations" for College Day (Ames, Iowa), October 21, 1908, saying, "the first botani­ cal laboratory west of old Harvard University."

58

John Merle Coulter

the Philadelphia Exposition. Bessey's classes continued the build­ ing of the herbarium and by the last of the year 1873, more than 2,000 specimens, including 500 to 600 species were merged with Bes­ sey's own collections of from 4,000 to 5,000 numbers. But Bessey was not satisfied. Work on the lawns, the orchard, the vineyard, the gar­ den, the entire farm had progressed, building fences, barns, gates, and sheds. The agricultural or horticultural work was in seemingly progressive condition. Something, however, still remained to be done. In the year 1875-1876, Bessey concluded to go again to Harvard. Compound microscopes had come into the laboratory during this year. "The squatty and very homely 'Verick' microscopes," Bessey wrote, "had replaced the single tall and stately iRoss' of the earlier period. . . . It was infinitely further now from the laboratory to the herbarium than when I worked out the structure of orchids and ferns and sedges under the eyes of the genial master. It was a new world, a distinct, and I might almost say a distant world." William Gilson Farlow had returned from studies in European laboratories and Bessey and he became intimately acquainted. Farlow taught several courses, one including work in fungi and plant diseases. Also he con­ tinued writing, and his subjects were "An Asexual Growth from the Prothallus of Pteris Serrulata," "The Potato Rot," and the like. He had begun to study and describe plant diseases. The Bussey Institu­ tion, an agricultural college, had been founded at Harvard. Farlow had been made an assistant professor of botany but it was not long be­ fore Gray realized that Farlow was not going to take an extensive in­ terest in the higher plants. His "fancy to lower Cryptogamia" had only increased in Europe. Bessey's great interest in the same was to take shape. Bessey returned to Iowa and on July 4, 1876, wrote Farlow: Thanks for Aecidium berberidis. I find none on our barberry bushes, although I have searched very carefully, many times. Yet we have much Puccinia graminis! ! This last is of course now in the Uredo state. I have not yet found Puccinia amorfhae. Looked for it some days since. Found yesterday a Sfhaerotheea on Ribes Cynosbati. I enclose a bit. If it is of interest I can furnish abundant specimens, as I collected a good quantity. I am "awfully" busy—and can not collect as I should. When will Boards find out that men can not do everything. Shall I rebel? I get "madder" every day, when I let myself think of what I ought to be doing. Will try to put up a good sp[ecim]en of Sfhaeria morbosa from wild plum in alcohol for sending to you this afternoon. . . .

The Years at Wabash College

59

Bessey had "touched the hem of" another's "garment and received his inspiration." In ι B 77 Bessey published in the Seventh Biennial Report of the Trustees, as a contribution to the flora of the state, a work entitled, "On Injurious Fungi," dealing with the Erysipheae of North Amer­ ica and particularly of Iowa. Studies followed, many in The College Qmrterly of Ames, "On the Means by which Injurious Fungi Are Distributed," "On Grain Rust,"24 and in July 1879, writing on "The Importance of the Study of Fungi,"25 it was said: The Rusts and Smuts which attack the farmer's crops are minute weeds of the worst type; they live at the expense of other plants by absorbing their sap and other fluids, and thus are true parasites. These plants have, however, definite modes of reproduction, and the educated eye can at once detect their reproductive organs. The skillful experimenter can even take the spores and, by sowing them, produce new rusts and smuts exactly like those he begins with.

During the year 1877-1878, Arthur returned to Iowa Agricul­ tural, becoming "demonstrator in the biological laboratory under Prof. Bessey." Bessey turned over to him a miscellaneous amount of material to be assorted and catalogued, a part of Curtis's collection which Bessey had.purchased. A result of this study appeared in 1882, published as a paper by the Minnesota Academy of Sciences, describ­ ing new species of Uromyces. In 1879 Arthur was made an honorary fellow at Johns Hopkins University, studying there under Farlow who was on leave from Harvard. And that same year Arthur went on to Harvard to study with Dr. Goodale. On August 3, Bessey wrote Farlow: Many thanks for your continued advices as to my fungus on Polygonum. From the little additional study I have given it, I am inclined to regard it as a Tilletia rather than Ustilago. If I can get time (which is doubtful) this year I want to study its development. I can get material for so doing by the cart­ load, if it is as abundant this year as last. . . . You inquire as to Mr. Arthur. He is a very good botanist in the department he has turned his attention to. He is good in the histology of the Phanerogams, and has done some excellent work. He has nearly exhausted the histology of Echinocystis lobata. Take a look at his paper, and drawings sometime. He is also good in the systematic part of the Phanerogams. He is a good collector and makes nice specimens. He has given but little attention to the Cryptogams. . . . 24

Written by one of Bessey's students, Ida TwitchelL Written by another of Bessey's students, now Professor-Emeritus of Entomology, Ohio State University, Herbert Osborn, then of Bessey's senior class. 25

6o

John Merle Coulter

He has been the past two years my assistant, and I found him to be quick to take up new methods, and able to do good work on short notice. I hope you will like him.

Arthur was probably at Harvard during the summer school in where he likely became acquainted with Coulter. When in 1882, following Bessey by one year, Arthur became a lecturer in the summer school of the University of Minnesota, Coulter recom­ mended his course in advance in the Gazette, saying, "A personal acquaintance with Mr. Arthur in the laboratory gives the writer an opportunity to heartily recommend his work and methods to those desiring such."26 From this acquaintance dates the origin of Arthur's becoming an editor of the Gazette in January 1883. A recommenda­ tion of Arthur's methods was a recommendation of the teaching of Bessey and Goodale. Arthur always consulted Bessey. Bessey had a continuing influence with all his students. On August 28, 1881, Ar­ thur wrote Bessey: 1879,

I wish to visit you to consult with you about my own plans for the future. If you will be at leisure I would be glad to come during the State fair next week, as this gives me reduced rates on the cars. My lectures have been remarkably successful, that is the two already given. The audience was large and of the most cultured people of the place. The first was enthusiastically received. The second was rather too technical, and of course not so popular.

Soon after his year's study at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, Arthur became an instructor at the University of Wisconsin. Following this, he taught in the Summer School, as described, using laboratory outlines which were, according to his own testimony, "elaborated into the fa­ mous A.B.C. book of Plant Dissection, which did great service in de­ veloping American botany by the laboratory method." This was Ar­ thur, Barnes, and Coulter's Handbook of Plant Dissection, published by them in 1886, in which all three had a part, all three by that time being Editors of the Gazette. As early as 1880 and 18 81 Arthur must have been preparing his part. The period between the publication of Bessey's Botany for High Schools and Colleges and the Handbook of Plant Dissection is one of the most significant periods in the history of North American botany. In the year 1885 appeared Goodale's Phys­ iological Botany, volume II of Gray's Botanical Text-Book issued in 1879. Gray's text matured the study of an observational morphology 26

Botanical Gazette, VII (July 1882), no. 7, p. 78.

The Years at Wabash College

61

in America. Bessey's, Goodale's, and Arthur, Barnes, and Coulter's works of the period, moreover, led the way beyond observational morphology to experimentation which, in turn, developed an experi­ mental morphology and plant physiology. During the years 1878 and 1879 Bessey had been busy working on a revision of William Ramsey McNab's Botany. Outlines of Mor­ phology, Physiology and Classification of Plants, and his own Botany for High Schools and Colleges. The "manuscript" of the latter, said Bessey, "was completed in the first few days of January, 1880, and the volume appeared from the press in August of that year." Iowa Agricultural appreciated what Bessey had done. "North Hall" was erected and the second floor was given to a botanical lecture room, a botanical laboratory, a study, and a room for the herbarium. The College Quarterly reviewed the Botany for High Schools and Col­ leges : . . . the excellence of this new Botany consists not more in the fullness of its matter than in the philosophy of its method. For Prof. Bessey has clearly recognized the fact that, in science, the investigator and the instructor pro­ ceed in precisely opposite directions. The former scrutinizes compounds as he finds them in nature and, reducing them by analysis step by step, reaches the indivisible unit beyond which he cannot go. The latter starts with the indivisible unit and reversing the movement, ascends by synthesis, through the simpler to the more complex and final compounds with which the scientist begins. Our author has followed this method with admirable precision. Beginning with Protoplasm, the sustainer of life, he proceeds to the vesicle that contains it, namely the plant cell, the structure of which, its growth, size, its increase by fusion, and its products, he then presents in synthetical order. Next with similar progressive steps he shows how the aggregation of cells produces tissues, then how the various tissues so formed go to make up the organs which compose the body of the living plant. Lastly after describing the plant with all neces­ sary details, he assumes it as the unit in classification, which he grasps in his final chapters and presents under the perfect system to which evolution has given birth and form.

Gray, when he reviewed Bessey's Botany, after considering what the Germans called "Scientific Botany," added: "Prof. Bessey's vol­ ume is a timely gift to American students of a good manual of vege­ table anatomy and of the structure and classification of the lower cryptogamia, which was very much needed. Here at least is a com­ mendable beginning." Gray was right. Bessey's interests developed in the fungi. Scientists received his work and began immediately to take it to their classroom and laboratory. The manuals for the labora-

John Merle Coulter

02

tory were yet to come. Bessey acknowledged the aid of Gray, "whom," he said, "it is an honor to own as my sometime teacher, for kindly aid and counsel in the preparation of the lectures upon which this work is based." Aid from Goodale, Farlow and Albert Nelson Prentiss, one of the pioneers in experimental botany and then of Cornell Univer­ sity, and from Arthur and others was acknowledged. But the public did not always take quickly to the works. Said of Bessey's revision of MacNab's Botany, one expression was typical: . . . It may be that a systematic treatise begins naturally at the bottom, with a cell and unicellular plants, and gradually advances to organisms of more complex development. But the study of botany properly begins with the plants about the student which he can see and handle and taste and smell; and not with those obscure growths which need to be investigated by the aid of a microscope which magnifies 800 diameters. Nor is it true that familiarity with the details of structural botany should precede all attempts at classification. Classification begins with earliest observation and comparison. Throughout this entire treatise on morphology and physiology the author is compelled to use the language of previous classification. Further than this, a classification based on external and apparent resemblances is quite as likely to be truly scien­ tific as one which is built up on a microscopic examination of the structure of the nutritive and reproductive organs of plants. . . .

Scientists, however, without known dissent welcomed Bessey's books. Bessey's systematization of the lower Cryptogamia was wel­ come. Further, Bessey had done much to bring to the attention of the public the necessity of studying plant diseases. It was not enough to know only the healthy plant. Studies must be had of the unhealthy plant also. We study animals and human beings in health and sick­ ness. So it must be with plants, regardless of past beliefs that animal and plant lives are entirely divisible. As late as 1887 he kept in­ sisting, "Although the fungi themselves have been studied in this country for many years, the diseases they produce have hitherto re­ ceived little attention. One would have supposed that from the thirty or forty agricultural colleges and agricultural departments of colleges in the United States something might have come, but the returns from these institutions have been as meagre as from other sources."27 In July 1881 the American Naturalist, of which Bessey was botan­ ical editor, published Thomas J. Burrill's article on "Bacteria as a Cause of Disease in Plants."28 Burrill wrote: 27

American Naturalist, XXI (1887), 276. XV (July 1881), 527.

2s Ibid.,

The Years at Wabash College

63

Certain diseases of animals are now positively known to be due to the action of the minute organisms commonly known as bacteria . . . it has not been shown that they also cause disease and death of plants, except as recently announced by the writer in case of "blight" in pear and apple trees (August, 1880, American Association for the Advancement of Science). I am now able to add the "yellows" of the peach with much confidence, without, however, the full investigation given to the former disease. In 1877 I observed in the fluids of blighting pear trees, great numbers of minute, moving things which were not clearly identified as bacteria until the following year. Their presence was uniformly detected in every examination made (and they were numerous during the summer of 1878), and the fact was reported to the Illinois Horticultural Society in December of that year (Transactions, p. 79). . . .

The year after the opening of Illinois Industrial University, now the University of Illinois, in 1869, Burrill, then an assistant pro­ fessor of botany, gave to his students of a second term class the chance to see and to study characteristics of mildews from actual specimens which he had gathered. Other forms of plant disease were included. Burrill, in January of that year, had made a most remarkable address to an agricultural conference at the university: A new field of labor is also opening before the student of botany, that of the vegetable diseases. Perhaps nothing pertaining to plants is so little understood; but the importance of the study and the increased facilities of later years for microscopic observations will undoubtedly call more attention to the subject. Cold, damp soil, sudden changes in temperature, excessive heat and drought, the attacks of insects and parasitic plants, are among the fruitful sources of disease. So far as observation has gone, it is pretty generally believed that the parasitic fungi are not in the first instance a predisposing cause of disease or decay; but it is known that they materially influence both, after causing great loss and alarming destruction. . . .29

Such were the conclusions which observation brought. Experimenta­ tion established such conclusions as that stated in his article "Bacteria as a Cause of Disease in Plants." Unless Farlow's studies on the po­ tato rot and other diseases made after his return from Europe in 1874; unless some investigations of plant diseases pursued as early as 1873 in the Department of Agriculture at Washington; unless Bessey's studies at Iowa Agricultural in 1873 and perhaps before are considered by virtue of methods and techniques employed to be more strictly pathological than these studies by Burrill, Thomas Jonathan Burrill must be regarded as the first plant pathologist of America. 29 Charles F. Hottes, "Personal Recollections of Thomas J. Burrill and His Work," Illinois Alumni Neivs, February 1940, pp. 6, 7.

64

John Merle Coulter

Even admitting the early techniques to be more mycological than pathological, Burrill in point of years was ahead of these men and departments. Gray indicated Burrill's leadership. On the experimen­ tal basis, Burrill was without doubt the leader. His was the first dis­ covery of a disease caused by bacteria where by scientific experimenta­ tion the organism was isolated and its existence made certain as well as its action. Such work was the result of applying analytical methods of other branches of science to botany. This was a first echo of the "new botany" in concrete form. John Merle Coulter allied himself with the work of Beal, Bessey, and Burrill, the midwestern three B's. He never deserted the work of Gray, Goodale, or Farlow. He stood for a botanical science of the widest possibilities. The Gazette stood for such. Arthur stood for such. So did Barnes. It must be said, however, that Coulter and Barnes did not do a great deal of work in plant pathology. But Arthur did and the Gazette encouraged its study. It was Darwinism in action. In 1884, when Arthur went as the first American station botanist to the New York Experiment Station working under Dr. E. L. Sturtevant, he initiated thorough studies in pear blight, tomato rot, strawberry mildew, and other diseases. About this same time, as a result of a visit to Farlow's herbarium and some previous collecting of specimens, Arthur determined to devote his energies to the studies for which he is today most noted—the rusts. Bessey wrote in June 1882, on "Modern Botany and Mr. Dar­ win":30 . . . For the botanist of today, plants are living, moving, feeling beings, whose habits and movements, and the secret of whose lives are deemed worthy of the closest scrutiny and observation. In this work, the proper work of mod­ ern botany, Mr. Darwin led, and where he did not enter himself, he pointed out the way. . . . Every book as it appeared gave a new impetus to biological botany. . . . The colors, odors, forms, the irregularities of flowers are no longer but so many variations for tickling our sense organs. In the domain of systematic botany, the great law of modification of species is slowly (as was to be expected, Mr. Darwin not being a systematist) bringing about a complete revision of classification . . . recent systems are all attempts to bring out the genetic relationship of the various groups, which are con­ sidered to have descended from more primitive forms. The parasites and saprophytes need no longer be placed by themselves in a group of exceptional plants, but find their proper places as the degraded members of various chloro30

American Naturalist, XVI (June 1882), 507-508.

The Years at Wabash College

65

phyll bearing plants. .. . The flower of the phanerogam is not wholly phanero­ gamic, it had its beginning away down among the simple pond-scums. . . .

Where now was John Merle Coulter on the subject of Evolution? Coulter had investigated "Animal and Vegetable Chlorophyll," an­ nouncing in 18 8 2 his conclusion that "Chlorophyll... holds the same relation to the bodies of animals which it inhabits as it does to plants, and although in the two cases it is morphologically distinct, it is phys­ iologically the same."31 In December 1883, he was to read before the botany section (Section F) of the American Association for the Ad­ vancement of Science a paper on the "Development of a DandelionFlower."32 So pleased was Bessey with the work that he requested the privilege of publishing it in the American Naturalist. Still earlier Coulter had studied the development of the embryo sac in different genera of Onagraceae, and his attention was called "to certain hair­ like projections which appeared upon the forming ovule of Godetia, probably G. grandiftora. A careful examination showed them to be identical in structure with the forming hairs in the coma of Epilobium," and so he began to trace the development of the coma of Epilobium and the ovules of Godetia. From this had issued his "Ru­ dimentary Coma in Godetia."33 Coulter, early in 1879, had begun to study embryological matters. Vesque's "Development of the Embryo Sac," Pringsheim's investigations in the "puzzling substance," Chlo­ rophyll, Flahault's "beautiful distinction between Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons," Celakowsky's "Gymnospermy of Coniferae," had all, among many other publications and articles, interested Coulter. During 1879 there appeared in the Gazette such notes or articles as "Raphides in Trillium erectum, var. album,"Dichogamy in Rho­ dodendron maximum,"35 "Cypripedium with a Second Labellum,"36 "Two-parted Cotyledons in Eschscholtzia,"37 all matters of direct and original observation or interest. Each year brought more, no­ tably "The Compound Crystals of Begonia"38 and "Respiration of Plants"39 in 1882, and "Anthesis of Cyclamen"40 and "Chlorophyll Botanical Gazette , VII (October 1882), 123-124. American Naturalist., XVII (December 1883), 1211-1217. 33 Botanical Gazette, V (August and September 1880), 9J-96. 8 4 Ibid., IV (June), 173. 3 5 Ibid. (August), 192. s e Ibid., 199. 37 Ibid., 200. 39Ibid., VII (July 1882), 84. s s Ibid., VII (January 1882), IO-XI. 40 Ibid., VIII (April 1883), 211-212. 31

32

66

John Merle Coulter

Corpuscles and Pigment Bodies"41 in 1883. Indeed observations on "Injurious Parasitic Plants"42 appeared in 18835 in 1884, "Oospores of Cystopus in Capsella,"43 and in 1885 the notable study, a con­ tinuation of his studies of the development of the dandelion flower, "On the Appearance of the Relation of Ovary and Perianth in the Development of Dicotyledons," a paper read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science in August of that year. Coulter had supervised the construction of a new building at Wabash College, a building which compared with those built for science at Iowa Agricultural and Michigan Agricultural. Here Coulter made a start toward the equipping of a laboratory in which he had been in­ terested for years, the experiences from which produced two ar­ ticles, one on "Laboratory Appliances"44 and one on "Laboratory Courses of Instruction."45 Coulter wrote on the Darwin memorial in 1882 a notice in the Gazette honoring as did the entire world the life of the great English scientist. Sir Charles Lyell, the great English geologist born in Scot­ land and author of the three volume work, Principles of Geology, and Alfred Russell Wallace were in large part also responsible for what Gray termed "the new mode of thought which now prevails." But the world placed the credit where in greatest part it belonged. Charles Darwin died honored and revered by the scientific world. And Coulter joined those who honored him. Indiana University .and Hanover College conferred on Coulter the honorary degree of doctor of philosophy. During the school year 1880-1881, after his work at Harvard was completed, Coulter had begun giving lectures on morphology and classification. Labo­ ratory work for at least three hours a week was required. And in the fall term of the junior year, the scientific section continued study with lectures on anatomy and physiology of plants, using compound micro­ scopes. Bessey's Botany, Sachs's textbook, and Gray's Manual were used for the work. Until 1884 Coulter held the Rose professorship of geology and natural history but, since he gave most of his time to botany, with the beginning of the fall term his department became known as the department of biology, or the Rose professorship of ilIbid.,

VIII (September 1883), 297-298. Ibid., VIII, 298-299. i i I b i d . , X (December 1885), 409-413.

42

43 45

Ibid., IX, 194. Ibid., X, 417-421.

The Years at Wabash College

67

biology and geology.48 His quarters were in Hovey Museum, a build­ ing which no longer stands—in the west wing was his office and labo­ ratory for biological sciences 5 in the east wing was his lecture room. From 1883 to 1885 Coulter also served as curator of the museum, in the work of which was his herbarium brought from Hanover, which occupied a separate room and within his years at Wabash attained a size of 50,000 specimens, arranged according to Durand's Index. The year 1884-1885 saw an enlargement of his teaching courses, using works of De Bary, Strasburger, Sachs, Goodale, Prantl, Vines, and Bessey. All parts of the plant were carefully examined and ana­ lyzed under dissecting microscopes. By 1886, and doubtless before, the laboratory for advanced botany had twenty compound micro­ scopes. Courses in botany were offered in the sophomore, junior, and senior years, consisting of subjects in gross anatomy and physiology of phanerogams, minute anatomy and reproduction of thallophytes, bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and monocots; and, of course, classification. The senior courses were of especial significance: minute anatomy and reproduction of dicotyls; study of cell contents and tissue systems, or systematic work; and preparation of a thesis. Long since, the work of the great genius Hofmeister had laid away "barriers separating 'Cryptogams' and 'Phanerogams' "47 and now for fully a decade morphological studies, including comparative morphological work and tracing life histories, had been on the in­ crease. Under influence of Strasburger and others, interest in studies of a cytological nature was increasing. Moreover, J. T. Rothrock had gone to De Bary and, prodded by Gray to do "original work," re­ turned with anatomical methods which perfected older techniques and marked, Coulter believed, the beginning of a new school of botanical interest; at least, it was a start in a new right direction. Rothrock's advocacy of changes in American teaching methods and his establishment of an early botanical laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, although mostly interested in medical botany, impressed his work on the science as of lasting and original value. 46 See James Insley Osborne and Theodore Gregory Gronert, Wabash College The First Hundred, Years !#32-/932 (Crawfordsville, Indiana: R. E. Banta, October 1932), pp. 1 S 0 I : 55· Coulter's stationery, however, shows that the department of biology began in

1884* 47 See Douglas Houghton Campbell's article, "A Sketch of the History of Plant Mor­ phology in America," in Plant World, 1911.

68

John Merle Coulter

Burrill gave to the science in a paper his knowledge of the best methods of section cutting. All ordinary section cutting was still largely hand sectioning, that is, cutting "free hand" with the aid of a razor or scalpel. But recently the regular microtome, of which nearly all laboratories had at least one instrument, came into use and more difficult problems, "such as the development of the prothallium of the heterosporous Pteridophytes and the minute details in the history of the embryo-sac and embryo of seed-plants" began to be solved. It was the beginning of the enlarged interest in study of the gametophyte in seed plants and of the great rise in interest in study of gymnosperms, particularly cycads, the discovery of spermatozoids in Cycas and Gingko, and of study in angiosperms, more espe­ cially their structures—the embryo sac, homologies of embryo-sac structures—"the search for forms which connect prevailing types with more primitive ones." In 1881, interested in paleobotanical studies largely by work of Charles Leo Lesquereux, a neighboring Ohioan, Coulter had re­ viewed Count Saporta and Marion's Evolution of the Vegetable Kingdom. The Cryptogams saying: . . . The whole subject is one of exceeding interest and importance and we now begin to know enough to know that our old ideas of the relations of plants hardly deserve even the epithet "crude" and that immense fields of investigation are opening before us, the extent of which no man dares to measure.48

Coulter as prophet in Botany was usually right. Surely in this instance he was. Lesquereux, from leaf and venation evidence mostly, from mere fragments many times, from materials of the United States Geologi­ cal and Geographical Survey of the Territories and the state surveys, almost alone had established paleobotany as a recognized branch of science in America. Dawson in Canada and Newberry in the United States had counted for much; but Gray and the European authorities, Heer, Schimper, Saporta, and others, turned in the pioneering years to Lesquereux. Lesquereux's great Contributions to the Fossil Flora of the Western Territories and his Description of the Coal Flora of the Carboniferous Formation of Pennsylvania and- throughout the United States had not been published in full. Nor had his noted 48

Botanical Gazette, VI, 241-242.

The Years at Wabash College

69

theory as to the origin of coal. It must be said that Lesquereux, not being a morphologist, remained a taxonomist. And, although Coulter recognized his work approvingly in 1882, the work of Europeans seeking to establish evolutionary relationships even in paleobotany interested Coulter. Lesquereux knew some morphology and realized interior structural study in paleobotany would develop. It was such re­ markable American work as that of G. R. Wieland which would soon aid in transforming morphological study of fossil plants, discovering, for example, fructification and foliage in cycadeoids. "Coal ball" study by English paleobotanists, following original examination of in­ terior structures of fossil materials, would supply advances.49 Coulter, Bessey, Campbell, and David P. Penhallow, another former student of Gray and Dawson's successor in Canada, saw, as work of Lester Ward, Wieland, and others progressed, possibilities in taking paleo­ botany into systems of morphology which were growing. > As morphology first developed, mature organs of single plants— the "type" plants many times—of the vascular system were em­ phasized. However, structural knowledge leading to discernment of function, gradually morphological investigations began to trace de­ veloping organs of all plants. Both nonvascular and vascular systems became objects of comparative studies. Paleobotany had been almost entirely a taxonomic study in Amer­ ica. For this purpose, structural studies, comparative examinations with our modern floras, were included, as well as inferences of func­ tion and conditions of existence of plants of the past—what would today be regarded ecological factors of plants of past geologic epochs. One of the questions had been the time of origin of our modern flo­ ra. Gray, acknowledging debt to Lesquereux, had generalized on geographic plant distribution, migration, origins of North America's flora, and the like. It was a new school of American paleobotanists, nevertheless, who notably began to treat problems morphologically. They saw need to study interior structures to learn plant affinities. To ascertain ages of deposits, new methods were devised by the United States Geological Survey. Although its work emphasized the systematic side, Frank Hall Knowlton, Ward, Wieland, Penhallow, 49 See an illuminating article by Wieland listing by years beginning about 1894 accom­ plishments in paleobotany, "Recent achievements in paleobotany," Science, n.s., LX (Sep­ tember 12, 1924), 233-235.

70

John Merle Coulter

Arthur Hollick and others aided extensions of knowledge. But botany and paleobotany for years could not get together morphologically. Since paleobotany's materials were often extinct, petrified, or frag­ mentary, it had to await development of living plant morphology before it had adequate bases on which to establish any but systematic inferences. First, it also had to do its taxonomy. As studies of living plant morphology—including both vascular and nonvascular systems and emphasizing both mature and develop­ ing organs—developed, need for studying the large groups in their interrelationships was seen. Morphology would not confine itself to generic and specific boundaries but would study also relations of pteridophytes and spermatophytes, the gymnosperms and angiosperms, the monocotyledons and dicotyledons, and so on. Further refinement of techniques would enlarge comparative studies of cell and tissue structures. Paleobotany would then be brought into morphology's orbit as a rich ally. Coulter saw all this coming. He was finished with the naturalphenomena observation period of Hanover years. Barnes's experi­ ments, begun as early as 1879—"The Hairs of Lychnis Githago, Lam."50 is an example—impressed him. He saw botany as a widely growing science. During his first two decades he approached prob­ lems more from the systematic point of view than the morphological and physiological. The latter were aids to the former. On occasion of his delivery at Minneapolis of the paper on "Development of a Dan­ delion Flower," in 1883 he made a favorable impression and was constituted secretary of the newly formed botanical club of which Dr. Beal became President. Coulter early began the practice of going to meetings where men of science were gathered. In 1885 there came another opportunity and he added to the paper which he explained to Gray by letter did not commit himself to the idea of "the Dan­ delion's ovule being produced from the midrib of a carpellary leaf, but said it looked like it. . . ." Coulter explained to Gray, "Sachs & others claim that Compositae & others have the ovules produced di­ rectly from the axis, & you that they are invariably outgrowths of the carpellary leaf. I started to investigate this, rather prejudiced I must say in favor of Sachs's view, but ended by an unhesitating acceptance of yours j in this case at least." And he explained what he saw. The 50

Botanical Gazette, IV (June 1879), 167-168.

The Years at Wabash College

71

paper of 1885, "On the Appearance of the Relation of Ovary and Perianth in the Development of Dicotyledons,"51 read before the American Association was perhaps Coulter's most important early morphological work. Said Coulter: Two years ago I read before this section a paper upon the "Development of the Dandelion," an organogenic study, in which it incidentally appeared that the first character to show itself was that of the inferior ovary. Since then this hint has been somewhat extensively followed up, and the results form the reason for the present paper. It is well known that botanical classification is in a transition state, that the published systems of classification are even far behind our knowledge, and that our knowledge is very far from what it ought to be. Sooner or later every­ thing artificial must be abandoned and the natural substituted for it. It is a matter of great congratulation among botanists, that Bentham & Hooker were permitted to finish their magnificent "Genera Plantarum" but it is also to be regretted that they have rendered still more rigid certain groupings which should plainly have been abandoned. . . . One of our greatest grievances has been the persistent displacement of Gymnosperms, whose true position both their floral organs and paleontology have long since pointed out, but this paper is chiefly concerned with the group Dicot­ yledons. ...

That Coulter was not in thorough accord with Gray's views on this point was later borne out by Watson who maintained that Gray had experience enough to appreciate the lack of wisdom in changing bo­ tanical nomenclature as it stood during the last decade of his life. Later, defending his own placement of gymnosperms in Coulter's and his edition of Gray's Manual of the Botany of the Northern States, Watson told Bessey: I fail to understand how it is any better to wedge them in between the Mon­ ocotyledons and the Pteridophytes than between the Dicotyledons & the Monocots. It looks to me like taking them out of a bad place and putting them into a worse. . . . I remember that the matter was discussed between Bentham & Hooker and Dr. Gray when the former were at work on the Genera Planta­ rum, with the result that the Gymnosperms were left in their old position.

However, as to dicotyledons, Coulter continued in his address: Here the artificial grouping into Polypetalae, Gamopetalae, and Apetalae has become threadbare and worn from long use, and in the present state of our knowledge it is worse than useless to attempt to patch it up. Although con­ fessedly artificial it distorts relationships in too plain a way and draws upon us the criticisms of the most superficial. . . . As embryology has been of such invaluable aid in Zoological classification, 51

Botanical Gazette,

X, 360-363.

72

John Merle Coulter

it is but reasonable to suppose that organogeny may be able to play some such part in botany. Upon the discovery that the inferior ovary was the first character to appear in the development of the dandelion flower, I began a somewhat extensive examination of the larger dicotyledonous families, to discover how the char­ acter was sustained. The fact was recognized that the dicotyledonous character was first to appear in the plant life, and hence it seemed that development shows no more natural grouping of Angiosperms than into Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons. About one hundred and fifty species were examined, from the very earliest stages of the flower to its full development belonging to the following eleven orders: Ranunculaceae, Leguminosae, Rosaceae, Saxifragaceae, Onagraceae, Rubiaceae, Umbelliferae, Compositae, Borraginaceae, Scrophulariaceae, and Labiatae. The result was that in every case the first recognizable character was that of inferior or superior ovary, and a most simple grouping on that basis was apparent. . . .

Coulter told his hearers of the appearance in development of this character and plunged into his cursory argument, suggesting an ar­ rangement "based on organogeny." But he qualified his remarks, say­ ing: It must be distinctly understood that the above does not present a proposed classification, but simply traces some of the probable results of organogenic study. It is of no small consequence in these days to obtain the testimony of paleon­ tology in favor of any system of classification. The order of appearance of Phanerogams is well known; first, Gymnosperms, then Monocotyledons, long afterward Dicotyledons, and the last Dicotyledons were those with inferior ovaries.

Coulter concluded by saying, "From such great groups as Compos­ itae, therefore, the flora of the future is to be worked out." Here was something! Here was an expression of the Gray-andGoodale, and Farlow, point of view—the dynamic point of view. Gray had realized that physiology was a coming thing in botany. His own textbook had stressed anatomy and physiology rather deeply. Gray stood for a continuously modernized morphology. Never once did Gray say that anything in botany had reached the point of finality, unless something had fallen into entire disuse. Coulter said Gray's "vision of Botany extended beyond taxonomy." Coulter, however, saw plainly what many others, including Gray, did not as clearly see—the necessity for studying the life histories of the various plant groups. Even while at Hanover he saw this. Not yet was Coulter ready to cast aside the established methods in taxonomy. He was restless. He was

The Years at Wabash College

73

impatient. But he was not joining the ranks of the dissatisfied, seek­ ing to overturn established order. He saw that so long as a plant had a name that stood intelligently in the established channels of botanical systematization, that was more important than the establishment of a purely scientific botanical nomenclature which even considered the origins of names for veracity and validity. Coulter did see the value of the study of inner mechanisms and structures of plants. Early at Hanover he had perceived that a plant had organs and organs, he knew, had to have functions which responded to mechanisms. Func­ tions involved tissues and tissues were important objects for study. Biologists and botanists, including zoologists and entomologists, had been collecting facts for many years. Darwin and subsequent investi­ gators had given a theory on which to hang these, by which to ana­ lyze further for more inclusive synthesizing. Taxonomy, however, was not a static subject to any of the greatest scientists. Nothing was final unless proved and science had to be sure that the facts were all in! As long as investigation was still possible they were obviously not all in. Coulter and others, among them Bessey and Farlow, began to argue for the study of more life histories of plants. Once these facts were assembled, relationships among the great groups could be de­ fined with probable certainty. In 1885 the Indiana Academy of Sciences, having an imposing ar­ ray of scientific talent, was organized. Among its founders were David Starr Jordan, a close friend of Coulter, Amos W. Butler, John C. Branner, Thomas Corwin Mendenhall, Oliver P. Jenkins, Joseph Charles Arthur, Willis S. Blatchley, Barton W. Evermann, Richard Owen, John Sterling Kingsley, William A. Noyes, Harvey W. Wi­ ley, Charles Reid Barnes, Daniel Kirkwood, 0. P. Hay, and Stanley Coulter. During May of that year Indiana University sought Coulter but as Arthur wrote Bessey on the 22nd of that year: . . . Coulter has been offered the Botany at Univ. of Indiana and declined it, so "Science" states. I learn through Barnes that they are not anxious for a professor of botany so much, as they wished Coulter. Coulter, however, will not change, because he is well fixed at Wabash, and thinks no western college is likely to do better for him. Barnes writes me that he and Coulter are urg­ ing my name, and that it seems likely that if anyone is appointed I shall get it. . . .

As to Coulter, that was precisely so. Wabash College had funds. He could purchase collections, books, and equipment. What would

74

John Merle Coulter

have drawn him to Indiana University was his friendship with Presi­ dent Jordan and the fact that the students there clamored for him. But he stayed where he was also very popular. And the new Indiana Academy honored him by electing him president. On December 28, 1887, Coulter gave his presidential address on the subject of "Evolu­ tion in the Plant Kingdom," a subject which he immediately refrained from explaining or defending and for the selection of which he halfapologized if some might think the theme by this time "hack­ neyed." Immediately Coulter disclaimed any intention of setting up a scheme of classification: I shall make no attempt to outline a great scheme into which every plant, however formed, shall fitly fall. If I were younger or less acquainted with botany, I could do this; for a young botanist usually begins by attempting to remodel all existing schemes of classification, just as a young college graduate can put veteran statesmen to shame. Botanists have no family-tree arrange­ ment for plants, and will not attempt the construction of one until they know more about the life-histories of the lower groups and more about structure in all the groups. As Dr. Farlow said, in his .Vice-Presidential address before the last meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: "On abstract grounds alone, I presume that few botanists would object to the statement that all plants have developed from ancestral forms which were nearly related to some of the lower animals. But when it comes to saying in anything like a definite way that certain existing forms have arisen from other lower existing forms or their immediate allies in some past epoch, and so on, until the lowest form is reached, botanists may well insist that imagination should not be allowed too large a scope in supplying missing links. It is pre­ cisely in this point that zoologists have an advantage over botanists. The palasontological record of lower animals is more complete than that of lower plants, so that where the zoologist might reasonably form an hypothesis the botanist must rely more on his imagination, until in the end he finds himself in the possession of a chain composed, to a considerable extent, of missing links. As it is, if we would consider the evolution of plants, not getting much light on the progress of the lower forms from paleontology, we are compelled to trust largely to plants as we now find them, and to ask what are the inferences we are permitted to draw from existing structures and conditions.

From a morphology dominated "by the doctrine of metamorphosis, meaning that root, stem, and leaf may become so modified that their real nature is not obvious,"52 morphology was developing into a study of mature structures and their development. As Coulter later de­ scribed it, "In this work, the life histories of plants began to be traced, 52 John M. Coulter, "Development of Botany in the United States," Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., LXVI (1927), 310. Also see Coulter's "A Century of Botany in Indiana," of. cit., where Coulter considered the same subject.

The Years at Wabash College

75

from the egg to maturity. In connection with this work, the lower plants began to attract attention, until finally all groups, from algae to seed plants, were being investigated." This would furnish bases for conclusions concerning relationships of the great groups of plants, and, as Coulter said, "the evolution of the plant kingdom as a whole." From a period of " 'types' when a few types were selected to represent the whole plant kingdom," morphology was enlarging to embrace not only "[discovering] all the facts about a single plant" but also to learn as much as possible "the important facts about plants in gen­ eral." Soon most important cytological studies in American labora­ tories would develop ontogeny and then comparative ontogeny and evolutionary sequences as a gradual procession of progression, and finally the facts most significant in the evolutionary scheme would be selected. Coulter, with the vision for which he became most noted, foresaw much of this. In his address on "Evolution in the Plant King­ dom," he said: It is not my purpose to go into the details of any supposed order of evolu­ tion of the plant kingdom, but to give some general thoughts concerning it and to trace through the development of a single structure. . . . I intend to give in merest outline the development of sexual reproduction. . . .53

Sexual reproduction, according to Coulter, was "one of the prin­ cipal threads upon which our botanical facts are strung." Having traced illustratively plant development in several general groups from Protococcus to phanerogam, Coulter summarized: . . . we have an asexual group as the lowest; then a unisexual group; then a bisexual one; bisexuality appearing as the goal in the first three groups. In the fourth appears the idea of protection, which gradually becomes more and more perfected in method, until, without any sensible break in the series, we reach completest protection in the seventh group, or Phanerogams. Also in the fourth group, after bisexuality had been attained, we find alternate generation, and it is in the development of that character that we find the most striking line of advance from the fourth group to the seventh. . . .

The analysis ended substantially with the concept of heterospory possessed by the higher plants of his sixth and all of the seventh groups: To sum up the lines of advance, with which we enter the group Phanero­ gams, we find male and female spores, producing male and female prothallia, and those prothallia so much reduced that not only do they not become sep53

Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci., i88y, 1 8 8 8 , p p . 3 2 2 - 3 3 J ·

76

John Merle Coulter

arated from the asexual plant, but are developed within the asexual spore itself. But these same important characters are to be found among the highest Cryp­ tograms, and we must conclude that any line of separation is one of our own drawing, and has no representation in nature.

With all the ramifications in development, Coulter found a "great scheme" and one "directed by laws of which we are beginning to catch glimpses, and by which the whole fabric of a great kingdom has been beautifully and continuously worked out." Where did he stand now on the subject of evolution? To the month, a decade before, Coul­ ter had delivered at Hanover College his address on "The World's Work." Was evolution approached skeptically now? The answers seem plain—evolution to Coulter was something neither to defend nor explain. Nature revealed its existence. That was all. All that Coulter had to adjust was his theology. His religion remained the same while his science grew.

CHAPTER V THE YEARS AT WABASH (CONTINUED ) THE TAXONOMIC STUDIES C3 N SEPTEMBER 12, 1881, Coulter had written Bessey, "Here

I am again for something physiological or anatomical. The Gazette can survive on systematic botany, but much prefers a mixed diet & a dessert of anatomy or physiology is most acceptable to its palate." In its early years the Gazette did flourish as a magazine devoted to taxonomic publications. Gray dominated American botany and his in­ terest was primarily taxonomy. At this time American scholars had not begun to go in large numbers to Europe to study. A few struggled to bring plant physiology and anatomy to the foreground. However, though much influenced by the work of Goodale and Farlow, they followed Gray along with Coulter and Bessey and other leaders. To be educated in Gray's school of criticism was the most they desired. To succeed to his place was the ambition of every American botanist. Like Gray, they welcomed and encouraged the study of plant mechanics but they recognized that the great task of knowing systematically the flora of North America was not yet done. Several "restless fellows out west" began to think of floral projects. Gray had the northeastern and northern states covered in his manuals. Chapman's Flora was still the standard work of the southeastern states. The far west had active systematic work being done by Watson, Brewer, and Gray's Botany of California, by Watson's botany of the 40th parallel, by Rothrock's botany of southwestern regions west of the 100th meridian, by the work of Charles Christopher Parry and George Engelmann, by the work of Edward Lee Greene and many others.1 Coulter noticed that "that great belt of states, beginning with Minnesota & Dakota on the north and ending with Louisiana & Texas on the south, is unsupplied with any manual of botany that can be of use in the schools & to ordinary collectors. Why can they not have one?" In October 1881 Coulter wrote Watson about it and in No­ vember Gray. Bessey, Hill, Engelmann and Watson had given en­ couragement and so Coulter told Gray, "The proposed range has the 1 Volney Rattan, Kellogg, later the Brandegees, Orcutt, the Parish brothers, Wright, and others might be mentioned.

78

John Merle Coulter

Mississippi for its eastern limit & about the meridian of 1040 for its western." Gray replied flatteringly but suggested a Rocky Mountain manual, an idea which had occurred to Coulter but never seriously considered as he feared he would be invading territory belonging to others, particularly Watson and Rothrock. Now that Gray advanced the idea—and with Watson's approval—Coulter's work was settled as soon as a range which they both approved had been defined. Coul­ ter's work on the Synofsis of the Flora of Colorado had fitted him to begin assembling the flora of the region "from Colorado north." By January 1882 Coulter had begun and, after settling whether Porter should be asked to aid, work was parceled to Engelmann and later to one or two others, among them, Michael Schuck Bebb, the author­ ity on North American willows. "Eaton's Ferns," Coulter later said, "will furnish plenty of material for compilation. I would give a good deal for a year at Cambridge." Coulter was still at times not confident of his own judgment and so materials were sometimes sent to Gray piecemeal and given by him most careful consideration. "I have gone on the principle of never changing anything merely for the sake of change," said Coulter, "& when the work of description or grouping has been done far better already than I can hope to do it now I have freely made use of it. Of course, the matter of credit will be fully at­ tended to." Matters such as common names of plants, introduced species, extent of notices for stations and collectors bothered the young author and he consulted Gray. Work, confined principally to his leisure hours, made the progress slow during 1883. Although Gray increased the number and impor­ tance of his contributions to the Gazette, Coulter learned, perhaps falsely, that Gray had warned foreign botanists against his publica­ tions. Gray did criticize some of Coulter's writing in the Gazette. But from his criticism Coulter learned and, an understanding once again effected, their relations continued, Gray revising his work and giving helpful suggestions. During 1883 Coulter spent much time supervis­ ing the construction of a building for his department and some time had to be given to the Geodetic Survey of Indiana of which his friend, J. L. Campbell, professor of astronomy was in charge. During the summer, however, he made "rapid progress with the 'Flora' & you would hardly recognize the old Mss," he wrote to Gray. Papers on teratology arrived in numbers and Coulter asked Bessey to write

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

79

a note on some of these, one that was to be "a bomb-shell in certain camps." In March 1884 Barnes and he found some thrifty patches of Oscillaria growing on the soil and decaying sticks. Coulter and his classes had "examined thousands of Oscillaria filaments, but never collected them so early in the season before." Coulter wrote Farlow: Upon examining them under the microscope, we found them to be fine specimens, & quite active with the characteristic Oscillaria movement. The clearly defined chlorophyll masses, clinging to the walls first attracted us, & then the numerous cells which contained well defined nuclei. But the most astonishing feature was the abundant occurrence of what look like the "heterocysts" of Nostoc. . . . Now who has seen "heterocysts" in Oscillaria?, & who has seen the development of "heterocysts" even in Nostoc? Our literature says that they are found in Nostoc, & that they are always empty. We write to you to be sure of our ground....

Such matters delayed the completion of the Flora. Then, too, Coul­ ter was absent from Crawfordsville during the summer of 1884. Dur­ ing that year, another child, Georgiana, was born. Coulter had to give the Gazette into Barnes's hands and probably worked as he did in 1885 on the Geodetic Survey, a national work for the Department of Interior but confined so far as Coulter was concerned to Indiana— "the Knobs" near New Albany, Wyandot Cave, and many areas of especial interest. Many times students assisted in the work of putting up geodetic towers and surveying vast areas of the state. The surveys provided the Coulters and Barnes with opportunities for continuing their studies in Indiana flora. It was an arduous task, however, en­ abling Coulter to make some additional money but preventing him from doing some things he very much wished to do, as, for example, attend the Philadelphia meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science where he had planned to talk to Gray about the Flora. On January 31, 1885, Coulter wrote Gray: Of course you know, without my saying so, that I am very grateful for the trouble you are taking in regard to my Manual. I appreciate such criticisms heartily & want as thorough an overhauling as your time or inclination will allow. A great many of your corrections are such as I would have made any­ how: others convey information that I did not have and want. There may have been slips in punctuation. . . . In the batch rec[eive]d today, you have, however, put your finger upon a most decided flaw, & wh [ich] I expected would "bring you to your feet" even

8o

John Merle Coulter

sooner. I freely acknowledge the "hybrid" nature of the treatment of genera, but that is frankly explained in my preface, which you have not read of course. So far as you have seen it represents a phase in the evolution of the method towards your treatment in the Flora, which I believe is the correct, common sense scientific method, viz. In the first part of my MSS I gave in the synopsis of genera, simply distinguishing characters, sometimes important, sometimes not. Then when I came to the genera heading their lists of species, I carefully omitted all that had been given in the synopsis to avoid repetition. The con­ sequence was, that characters appear in rather haphazard fashion, & in some cases, no characters at all. Then in all the later parts of the work I drop com­ pletely into the method of the Flora. . . .

The point was that Coulter learned at this time it was better to take advantage of Gray's knowledge and experience than to devise a method of his own. Coulter stood on this ground practically the entire course of his taxonomic career. During May the finishing of the manual proceeded slowly. Barnes and he decided to do Cyperus next. The offer of the chair of Botany at Indiana University arrived. And that year the Manual of the Botany (Phaenogamia and Pteridofhyta) of the Rocky Mountain Region, from New Mexico to the British Boundary2 appeared. Bessey caught an error in the descrip­ tion of tumbleweed. But, otherwise, the reviewers praised the work highly. In November there appeared in the Gazette a note, "Prof. John M. Coulter has been appointed State Botanist of Indiana, a posi­ tion with more of sound than substance, but looking towards better things." In 1883 in the twelfth annual report of the Indiana Depart­ ment of Geology and Natural History had been published a "Cata­ logue of the Flora of Central-Eastern Indiana (Alpine, or Elevated District of the State)" by Dr. A. J. Phinney who acknowledged an indebtedness to Coulter "for reviewing and correcting the mistakes in nomenclature and the identification of new species . . . thus greatly enhancing the value of the catalogue."3 In the thirteenth and four­ teenth reports Coulter was referred to as a special assistant of the de­ partment in the capacity of botanist. But in the fifteenth, published in 1886 for 1885-1886, Coulter was described as "State Botanist." In this report, with Harvey Thompson, Coulter published an article, showing decidedly Gray's influence, on "The Origin of the Indiana Flora." Well written and well organized, it divided the flora into 2

New York and Chicag- O: Ivison, Blakeman j Taylor & Co., xvi, 453, and 28 pp. 199.

3 P.

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

81

seven regions, the Lower Wabash Valley, the prairie, the regions of Barrens, the lake, the Highland, the "Knobs," and the central. Since publishing his catalogue with Barnes and his brother Stanley, Coulter had added subdivisions. A comparatively new subject for Coulter was considered. Coulter had reviewed published articles and treatises of Gray and Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker on geographical distribution of the North American flora. Their theories as to our flora's origins had been considered. Some considerable attention had been given to plant migrations. And many of the conclusions of North American paleobotanists, partic­ ularly John Strong Newberry and Leo Lesquereux, had been incor­ porated j as well as those of Europeans, such as Saporta and Oswald Heer and others, who had made studies of materials from North America. Coulter divided the subject of plant migration into two: (i) permitted or accidental causes of migration, and (2) compulsory migration. Following Lesquereux doubtless, he concluded the In­ diana climate of preglacial times was much like the present and said:4 . . . We must conclude that our North American flora has originated in the far North, and once flourished around the North Pole; that it was driven south by the cold of the glacial epoch, and again north by the Champlain cli­ mate, and eastward by the trend of the continent, and that in each of these movements many species have lodged by the way where favorable stoppingplaces have been found, and have remained in these places as far as their surroundings would permit.

Once again, Gray's influence was manifesting itself. But it must be remembered that, aside from Gray's investigations with Hooker on going in 1877 to Colorado and on west to California as guests of Hayden's United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, Gray had accepted the findings of Leo Lesquereux in paleobotany. Gray, however, had given pronouncement to theories dating from his own investigations of the relationship between the Eastern Asiatic and Eastern North American floras. Hooker had given much attention to the floras of the polar regions. The two had con­ sidered the migrations from Mexico and South America into south­ western United States. And Coulter, like all American botanists, had taken much interest in their published works, relating his own ex­ aminations to those of Gray, Hooker, Lesquereux, and others. In*P. 274.

82

John Merle Coulter

deed, Lesquereux had done much studying in Indiana, writing for the same Department of Geology and Natural History articles not only of a fact-finding nature but theoretical as well. Lesquereux had begun with Indiana's fossil marine flora and its coal flora in days of the early geological survey of Indiana under Cox. Only a little more than two years before, he had given to the science his scholarly Prin­ ciples of Paleozoic Botany, first published in a report of the Indiana department. Coulter divided the subject of the origin of Indiana's flora into five classes: plants from the northeast, plants from the northwest, plants from the east, plants from the south, and plants from the west. "Enough has been said to show the composite character of our flora," commented Coulter, "and that the chief lines of invasion have been from the north and east, principally the former, or that at least these invaders have been the most successful in maintaining their foot­ hold." Coulter also believed in conclusion that "there were two lines of northern advance—one from the north-east and the other from the north-west—presumably coincident with separate glacial ad­ vances." Coulter had written two studies for Science on Indiana glaciology.5 Coulter's position as state botanist, however, did not last for more than a year. The story is that the political party responsible for his appointment asked a political contribution. Coulter could not afford such a sum as that asked. He quitted the position and an honor of nomination as state geologist. Coulter's reputation now was not merely statewide, although ar­ ticles published in the Indiana Farmer,6 a newspaper of rural circula­ tion, and his studies of the Indiana flora had given him decidedly a statewide reputation—it was nationwide. Wabash College appre­ ciated this and with the beginning of the year 1885 Coulter was given assistance in the department of biology. During the year 1885-1886, Harvey Thompson was his assistant; during 1886-1887 and 18871888, Joseph Nelson Rose; during 1888-1889, Walter H. Evans; and during 1890-1891, Henry E. Seaton. Coulter began to develop the remarkable students for which to the present he is particularly known. With many, the principal source of his greatness lay in his teaching, which inspired his students to still greater achievements. 5

II, 6; III, 748.

6

Published in 1884.

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

83

Coulter, of course, rated this as of first importance. Gray, Goodale, Bessey, and one may say, Arthur and Barnes, had sown good seeds of thought and perspective in the mind of Coulter. His heart was in his work. At Wabash, however, he stressed research. His family liked Crawfordsville. He liked Wabash College. Both Coulter and Mrs. Coulter taught large Sunday school classes and many of his students attended both college classes and their Sunday classes. Coulter was very much liked by his students. And the Coulter home was a happy one. By this time Dr. and Mrs. Coulter had had a delayed honeymoon, going alone to Niagara Falls. And by 1886 their house which they built at Crawfordsville was completed. Gray said Coulter "had a knack for putting things in shape." Late in 1885 Coulter went to Cambridge and, returning to Indiana, wrote Bessey: I am just home from Cambridge where I have had a glorious time. West­ ern botanists were as thick there as they had ever been seen. Dr. Gray gave us a reception at his house, at which the species was chiefly occidentalis. But I am suffering just now with a thumping case of neuralgia, contracted by my having caught cold during my last day or two on the cars. . . . Yes, I did what I could to modernize & anglicize descriptive botany but it couldn't be much, hemmed in as it was. . . . A new edition will appear in a very short time. . . .

Coulter with Arthur and Barnes had served as a committee which had presented on behalf of 180 American botanists a silver vase with plate inscription and appropriately carved floral decorations to Asa Gray on his seventy-fifth birthday, November 18. However, this was not the occasion of Coulter's going to Cambridge. On November 30, Liberty Hyde Bailey, shortly before then an assistant to Gray in the Herbarium and Garden, wrote to Bessey from Cambridge, "Barnes is here. Halsted came today. Expect Trelease before long, and Coulter hopes to come also." And Coulter came, evidently staying for about two months. Gray at this time was conceiving his plans for en­ dowing the Gray herbarium and botanists, Coulter especially, sought the privilege of aiding him in so doing. After all, they all used the herbarium as it was a national institution and the botanical fraternity was a closely knit group, largely through the great influence of Dr. Gray. The largest herbarium, largest library, largest collection of living plants, a garden of national prominence, were there. Furthermore, an interesting story is told of a meeting about this

S4

John Merle Coulter

time of Bailey and Coulter—one that reflected the status of American horticulture then as a phase or branch of American botany. On Janu­ ary i, 1885, Bailey had accepted a professorship of horticulture and landscape gardening at Michigan Agricultural College. When he told Coulter, the Wabash College botanist's reply was he did not see "how under heaven any man can take such a professorship as that. You will never be heard of again." Even Gray betrayed disappoint­ ment at Bailey's choice. "But, Mr. Bailey," said Gray, "I thought you planned to be a botanist." When Bailey insisted that a horticul­ turist needed to be a botanist, Gray replied conventionally, "Yes, but he needs to be a horticulturist, too." Horticulture for a century and a half had made little progress except in systematic efforts to originate new varieties of plants and make "warfare against insect enemies." Essentially it was a practical art conducted by practical farmers, gardeners, and nurserymen. Gray's reviews of European horticultural investigations had stimulated Bailey. Darwin's studies, while not addressed to horticulturists, were based largely on cul­ tivated plants. The vision of a new science was in his and Wallace's works. Bailey went to Michigan and, by work and word, projected a "new horticulture" for America. Along with Beal, a projector of a "new botany," Bailey quickly took up an aggressive role in the devel­ opment of a scientific horticulture. Agricultural experimentation issued from the comparatively recently established experiment stations. And, although Bailey pleaded with botany to enlarge the compass of its work to include cultivated plants as thoroughly as wild plants, horti­ culture gradually became correlated more with agriculture than bot­ any. Incidentally, it may be said that Bailey, while at Michigan Agri­ cultural, established the first plant science laboratory in an American college, devoted distinctively to horticultural study. Apparently Coulter's publishers prevailed on him to follow his Manual of the Flora of the Rocky Mountain Region with a manual of the Mississippi Valley regions. But Coulter, though young and eager to work, learned that Gray planned to cover this ground him­ self and coming to understand that his publishers had not con­ sulted the doctor, immediately changed his plans. Once again Coulter adopted the plan Gray held out for him. His deep affection for the great one induced him to do so. A Cincinnati firm had sought Coulter to compile a small book for local use but this was placed aside. Once

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

85

again it became a matter of settling range and forming stipulations. A second edition of the Rocky Mountain manual was contemplated and Coulter this time wished to include "Chapman's 'bailiwick,' " part of the southeastern states which Coulter believed now sadly needed a new manual. Perhaps the plan at this time was to include a new Rocky Mountain Manual with a new Gray Manual. At any rate, Coulter wanted to give over the grasses to Scribner, the sedges to Bailey, and willows to Bebb. Coulter's work was not destined to follow the course planned. On October 16, 1885, Coulter had written Bessey: Your "lab" notes have been received & I am much obliged for them. They are coming in nicely from various quarters & I think we shall have a valuable number. You are a fortunate man in getting to unpack so many microscopes & call them your own. Wish I could see what you have, & how they work. . . .

Coulter had with him at Wabash a most promising student, Joseph Nelson Rose. Together they with microscope and full laboratory equipment began important investigations. In the first half of the year 1886 the Gaxette published their study, "The pollen-spore of Tradescantia virginica L,"T and in the last half their even more important systematic work, "Synopsis of North American pines, based upon leaf-anatomy,"8 a morphological and taxonomic study following leads already made by George Engelmann, now deceased. The introduction of histological characters, the tissues especially, in matters of classification was not new but it was by no means prevalent. Nor were diagnoses by use of leaf characters. McNab's use of "leaf anatomy,"9 a decade before had displeased Engel­ mann. However Arthur and Barnes both seconded Coulter's new systematic effort and it laid him open to the charge that he was no longer in sympathy with taxonomy as it then stood. This, however, was not true. Coulter was a man of vision. He was not afraid to ex­ periment, although, like Barnes, he wished to know first where the experiment was to lead him. Coulter's basic interest in taxonomy and his growing absorption in matters of morphology and histology had to be reconciled. Further than this, there were subjects developing in the science as shown by Coulter and Rose's treatment of "the pollen-spore of Tradescantia virginica." Within less than two years, 7

8 Ibid., XI; I, 256-2625 II, 302 309. Botanical Gazette, XI, 10-14. The use had excluded flower and fruit, totally relying on leaf anatomy, Engelmann said. 9

86

John Merle Coulter

Coulter, in his address on "Evolution in the Plant Kingdom,"10 would say: . . . The final result is, that in the flowering plant . . . highly specialized sets of organs produce the two kinds of asexual spores, which have been called pollen-grains and embryo-sacs. It seems strange to be forced to give up pollengrains or embryo-sacs as sexual affairs, for in our old notion of things they represented the very essence of sex; but the fact remains that they are asexual spores and simply give rise to prothallia which bear the sex-organs and give rise to the sex-spore. The two prothallia which are developed from these asexual spores have reached the highest degree of reduction, developing within the spores them­ selves. In the case of the pollen-spore11 two or more cells are developed, which may be easily seen by the use of the proper reagents, and this small group represents the male prothallium, one of the sex-phases in the life cycle. This much reduced plant sets apart one or more of its cells to do vegetative or growth work, and another to be the male organ. A very vigorous growth of this prothallium is demanded in the development of the pollen-tube, through which the male cell discharges its contents. This pollen-tube does not usually find an open passage-way, but one that is blocked up with spongy tissue, called "conductive tissue," through which it makes way like a parasite invading the tissue of a host plant. In the case of the embryo-sac, the female asexual spore, the development of the prothallium is still feebler, the cells representing it not only being few in number, but free from each other,—a sort of disorganized tissue. The cells representing the female organs are clustered near the apex of the embryo-sac, forming what we now call the "egg-apparatus," while those that probably rep­ resent the vegetative cells of the prothallium are clustered at the other end of the embryo-sac, and are styled "antipodal cells." In pines, representing the lowest group of flowering plants, the female prothallium is a very distinct and compact tissue, bearing regulation female organs, the so-called "corpuscula." This but shows their position upon the lower border line of Phanerogams. The sex-phase in the life cycle, therefore, which in mosses stood for the whole plant as we ordinarily recognize it, in Phanerogams has become reduced to little clusters of cells developed within the pollen-spore and embryo-sac, so in­ conspicuous that it has remained for the modern reagents to discover their existence. . . .

The great genius Hofmeister's influence, stimulating European laboratories from about 18 50, had developed a morphology of mi­ nute structures. Later Strasburger, with added refinements of tech­ nique, became the dominating influence. Each influence reached American shores after American students began going abroad to study. The American laboratories then with microscopes, reagents, and sections began to share in the work. Coulter had a Minot's microtome 10 11

O f . c i t . , pp. 333-334. Coulter had also published "Cultivation of pollen spores," Botanical Gazette., X, 427.

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

87

and it is said that with this and an instrument devised by Barnes for sectioning, Coulter's zeal to know final truths in morphology was greatly stimulated. He had become a student of laboratory methods and techniques and, joining knowledge with Barnes and Arthur, they produced the Handbook of Plant Dissection.12 On April 20, 1886, Coulter wrote Bessey, "The Handbook of Plant Dissection is out." Bessey regarded the publication as "an entirely original work, no statements being made at second hand, and no directions for work being given which have not been actually worked out by the authors themselves. One finds evidence of this original work on almost every page," said Bessey, "and this fact alone will commend the book to all teachers and to every pupil who wishes to become an investigator in structural botany."13 Coulter was still interested in conventional systematics. Although he and Gray came to an understanding as to his next work, circum­ stances led him elsewhere. For example, on May 13, 1886, he wrote Gray: "Am working over all of Martindale's Hypericaceae with my revision, & find it works like a charm. It is strange to me what mis­ takes even very good botanists make in their naming. . . ." When in Cambridge, Coulter had been given access to all the material there in the herbarium. In the Gazette of April and May 1886, he pub­ lished his "Revision of North American Hypericaceae,"14 and later "Some Notes on Hypericum"15 was added. However, this was not the study which drew him away from plans which he and Gray had effected. The Umbelliferae were the main reason. On May 29, Coulter told Gray, "I have your 'model' for the new manual as set forth in Caprifoliaceae & have been 'setting my mind to it.' I can't 'for the life of me,' see how the thing could be condensed any further." But he was satisfied "with the whole presentation" and had but one suggestion to offer—he wanted to add synonymy which Gray had not done in the model. Again in June he wrote Gray con­ cerning indicating geographical range and numbering species con­ secutively. In the last point he was following the method "in Jor­ dan's Synopsis of N[orth] Am[erican] Fishes & it looks well," he 12

New York: Henry Holt & Co., xi and 256 pp., 2 pis.; revised in 1887. American Naturalist, XX (1886), 536-537. "Pp. 78-88; II, 106-112. 15 Botanical Gazette, XI, 275. On September io, Coulter told Gray, "Have been studying Dr. Gatting-er's Hypericum. . . ." 13

88

John Merle Coulter

added. Additional correspondence followed, on matters of size of the manual and abbreviations of names of states. But in September he told Gray, "I only wish that I had some small group of plants to work up as I did Hypericaceae. I have accumulated literature enough now to make a stagger at it, Michaux, & Hooker's Fl[ora] Bor[eali] being my last finds." And at Christmas time, during the holidays, Coulter and his family went to "the old homestead" at Hanover and work on the manual ceased temporarily. On January 15, 1887, Coul­ ter wrote Gray an important letter, saying that soon he would have Ericaceae for the manual ready, but added: I am deep in Umbellifers & am having fine success with the fruit characters. Their relationships seem distinct enough, but they are by no means always in the right genera. For instance, Conioselinum is a good genus. . . . It is im­ mensely interesting to see relationships show up in the minute structures of the fruit. I am getting up a series of illustrations of them in the Gazette which I am satisfied will let daylight through our E [astern] U[nited] S[tates] forms.

And on April 5 he told Watson: As you well say, generic lines are hard to draw among Umbelliferae, & make all genera of equal rank, & I believe that after all, we will have to be somewhat arbitrary about it.

With Rose, Coulter began to publish in the Gazette "Notes on Umbelliferae of E. United States,"16 and continued to publish these throughout the year, also writing at the year's conclusion on the "Development of the umbellifer fruit."17 Again Rose and he had studied morphologically a subject as they proceeded with its systematization. "Our study of Eastern Umbellifers," wrote Coulter, "[was] published ... rather to 'try the thing on' than anything else, & also to secure a large amount of material. Now that this is done we want to turn to a more general study of N[orth] Am[erican] Umbel­ lifers, & to stop publishing the results in a serial form. We want now to study the thing in all its relations before we publish anything. It seems to me that a whole year spent upon Umbellifers by two of us, with the experience now acquired, with our complete arrangements for careful sectioning, should help along to an understanding of our 1 6 XII, I, 12-15; II, 60-635 III, 73-765 IV, 102-1045 V, 134-1385 VI, 157-1605 VII, 261-2645 VIII, 291-295. About 1890 Coulter and Rose did Umbelliferae for John Macoun's Catalogue of Canadian Plants. 17 Botanical Gazette XII, 237-243. x

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

89

N[orth] Am[erican] forms. We would be glad to hear from you in the way of advice before 'enlarging our borders.' " In April Dr. and Mrs. Gray went to Europe but by October they had returned and Coulter, who had sent Gray copies of the Gazette keeping him informed of botanical news, immediately wrote him wel­ coming him home. "As you know," Coulter wrote, "for a year now I have been eating, drinking, & sleeping Umbellifers. They have fairly possessed me. We have finished our eastern job & the last two papers will appear in Nov. & Dec. Gazette. The amount of exhaustive study we are expending is enough to bring some result. We have now turned our faces towards N. Am. Umbellifers & are making good progress. We have all of Martindale's & Donnell Smith's Umbelli­ fers, besides many other lesser collections such as Canby's, Porter's, Brown Univ[ersity], etc., & of course have been imposing upon Mr. Watson & the Torr[ey] Herb[arium]." The following year Coulter and Rose's great monograph appeared, Revision of North American Umbelliferae™ the first of a notable series of monographs to occupy a great deal of Coulter's time during the next decade. The work, as Coulter revealed in a letter to Farlow March 14, 1888, was under­ taken on Gray's advice and was promised publication in the Proceed­ ings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. But to the great loss of all American botanists Dr. Gray died on January 30 of that year. Evolution can play a part in the history of a book as it develops— not in a strictly scientific sense admittedly—but a book can grow and enlarge its compass as it is written. Conversely, it can be limited in its scope. The second edition of the Manual of the Botany of the Rocky Mountain Region, to which Coulter referred in his letters to Gray, was planned at first with a well defined range and on agreed stipulations between Gray and Coulter. However, apparently as Gray aged, it became clear that he himself could not complete the task of a sixth edition of his Manual of the Botany of the Northern United States and the task more or less fell to Coulter to include the botany of the Mississippi Valley, "Chapman's 'bailiwick,' " the south­ ern states, and eastern Texas in an enlarged edition of Coulter's Man­ ual. Indeed, as time progressed, it was gradually understood that Coulter's work was to become a sixth edition of Gray's Manual of 18

Crawfordsville, Herbarium Wabash College. 144 pp. 9 pis.

John Merle Coulter

90

the Botany of the Northern States. Dr. Trelease, who knew both Gray and Coulter intimately, recorded: The welcome accorded this Rocky Mountain manual with its short diag­ nostic descriptions which included, as Coulter once phrased it when speaking of another book of the kind, "enough but not too much"—seems to have in­ spired the idea of putting into similar form an account of the plants of the Mississippi Valley and of the plains, in large part omitted from his own work, from its often revised prototype—Gray's manual—and from the already an­ tiquated southern manual of Chapman for which demand had become so slight as seemingly to warrant only inadequate supplements instead of a thorough revision. The scope of such a work fell too close to the natural limits of both of these books, and Coulter was drawn into consultation with publishers and author concerning an extended and modernized edition of Professor Gray's manual, in the preparation of which Coulter should cooperate and bear the brunt of the labor. Incorporation of the South proved quite too large an undertaking for a handbook of the approved size and cost; but within their own parallels it had been virtually decided that the Rocky Mountain and eastern floras should be brought together by a westward extension of range for the new edi­ tion of Gray's manual. Professor Gray's death ended the original plan.19

Evidently the summer after Gray's death, Coulter and Rose went to Cambridge to study Umbelliferae—they planned the trip and doubtless went—and there Coulter made arrangements with Watson to complete the sixth edition of Gray's Manual. Another series was being published, "Notes on Western Umbelliferae."20 Coulter, and Watson agreed rather completely in matters of taxonomy, at least, sufficiently to collaborate in producing another edition of Gray's Manual. Before Gray's death, Coulter had called his attention to Edward Lee Greene's "stirring up synonymy as with a pitchfork" in recent issues of Pittonia. Coulter regarded him "a second Rafinesque" and his work somewhat like that "of a crazy man, at least one lost to all sense of propriety." Nathaniel Lord Britton, who recently had been most instrumental in getting plans under way for formally establishing the New York Botanical Garden, was stirring up contro­ versy "with regard to the priority of specific names." Coulter wrote Gray, asking about Britton's aConioselinum bipinnatum" and his "raking up of old specific names." Gray's last letter had been a letter to Britton, seeking restoration by him of Conioselinum Canadense 19

O f . c i t . y p. 102. See Coulter jS explanation, Botanical Gazettey XVII, 137 if. Gazettey XIII, 77-81 j 141-1465 208-211.

20 Botanical

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

91

as Coulter had restored it.21 On April 18, j 8 8 8, Coulter told Wat­ son, "The mania for digging up old and very doubtful names we are not in sympathy with at all." And a week later, "The 'priority' business is running out to absurdities & they had better be shown up." Coulter believed, "If such changes are to be made they should never be made by catalogue makers, but only by monographers who have the requisite knowledge. I anticipate a sickening confusion of synon­ ymy in the near future. . . ." When Watson considered Coulter and Rose's "Revision of North American Umbelliferae" for Proceedings of the American Academy, Coulter offered to regard it a contribution from the Gray Herbarium, saying, "I hope also that it embodies the conservative spirit of the Gray Herbarium." Coulter at this time was undoubtedly a conservative. The most argumentative of all, how­ ever, was Greene. Gray's and his correspondence terminated before Gray's death. Watson followed Gray's position with Greene during the summer of 1888, insisting kindly but firmly no hostility existed between them. Greene, despite this, insisted on waging a battle for a new science of nomenclature, at least, nomenclatural reforms. And even Coulter at length became disgusted and wished for Greene death in a fit of apoplexy. The cause of North American botany would be subserved. It was, it is said, such turmoil and strife that eventually urged Coulter to seek the more quiet and satisfying refuge of mor­ phological research. One wonders at this, however. Coulter's even­ tual exit from taxonomy was more a matter of circumstance. He never feared a fight. In October of 1888 Coulter's letters to Watson began for the first time to refer to "Gray's Manual" and its revision.22 First, however, Coulter had to have a vacation. In Crawfordsville, a group of friends gathered some time during the late summer to camp at "Kingfisher Cabin" located on Pine Hills near Sugar Creek. Since 1886 when Coulter had had to spend eight weeks in "State work," he had gone with this happy group, among them, the Campbells, "Al" Baker, Judge A. B. Anderson, "Ben" Crane, and General Lew Wallace, author of "Ben Hur," and his son Henry Wallace. Coulter had an21 Britton, after receiving· Gray's letter, changed his naming to C. Chinensis. Coulter resented this; in a letter to Watson May 16, 1888, he said so. 22 Their agreement at this time was to bring the Manual "up to our fublished knowl­ edge." No monographing was to be done. Watson, however, on meeting dubious places, contributed original work.

92

John Merle Coulter

other association in Crawfordsville which he enjoyed—the Quiatenon Club. On election nights he and his friends sat up all night to hear the returns. It was the one long period in Coulter's life when he had what might be termed a large circle of "pally" friends. Of course, there was always the church in his life which gave pleasant associations to him and Mrs. Coulter. Coulter knew how to enjoy himself—he was not incessantly a student—in college it is said in spite of his injured knee he was an excellent first baseman on the baseball team. He enj oyed tennis. And later when golf came in vogue he became its devotee, aiding much in introduction of the game in Indiana. Nothing, nevertheless, invaded his two largest interests— science and religion. These came first always. Coulter and Watson decided for their edition of Gray's Manual to conform to a definite range and not "lug in" material not belong­ ing to it. Much the same geographic range was taken as had been em­ ployed in previous editions. And, as he studied, Coulter became at­ tracted to Amarantaceae. "In Amarantaceae," he wrote Watson, "I find many questions as to whether species are indig[enous] or intro­ duced]. . . ." In some of the catalogues there was "wool waste," that is, species of questionable belonging in some of them. In November he made an observation of interest. He told Watson, "Of course, if you attack Polypets. with Dr. Gray's Mss., it is just the thing to do. I am confident I can finish the Apets. & Monocots. by the end of the month." Does this mean that Dr. Gray had commenced a manuscript of the edition? Or was this Gray's uncompleted manuscript of the Synoftical Flora of North America? Probably the latter as Gray's last work was with polypetalous genera and orders for the Flora. At any rate, other "distinguished specialists" had been called into the Manual work which was nearing completion. Coulter, in the course of his work, became also interested in Cactaceae. "I have been having my desires on Cactaceae for a long time," he wrote Watson, "but the awful paucity of material has held me back. If you are will­ ing to entrust the Cambridge material to me, I will secure all the other collections, & will do the very best I can." At the year's end, Coulter offered to do proofreading and the index, adding that he would enjoy seeing the Manual through the press. So the work went. In 1890 the sixth edition of Gray's Manual by Coulter and Watson was published. It was not the comprehensive, critical work which

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

93

Gray and Coulter planned. Receiving some severe reviews, it weath­ ered the storm, however. The great majority o£ botanists received the book with commendation. It was much regretted that, among the most severe critics, Thomas Conrad Porter was perhaps foremost. Coulter was surprised. But their friendship continued. Such was Coulter. On January 24, 1889, Coulter wrote Watson, "Now that the job is done, will you please tell me what steps I am expected to take to get at the money? I want to put it largely into the Gazette. Counting my time fairly, by the hours given, I was at the thing just 6 months." In 1886 Barnes had gone to Cambridge and studied with Gray who had formed a "good opinion" of him, something which Coulter said he had always but it was pleasant to hear others "bearing the same testimony." Returning to Purdue, in 1887 Barnes had left there and gone to the University of Wisconsin; and Arthur on a night's notice had succeeded him. Arthur was told "that if the experiment station [was] established under the Hatch bill within a year, [he was] to be transferred to that as the botanist, and· relieved of teaching," which, of course, "meets my wishes," he said. Arthur was made "full pro­ fessor of botany" and the fact that Indiana brought him very near Coulter and Barnes made him "burning anxious" to get a position there. Two years before he had told Bessey, "We could push the Gazette., new books, laboratory methods, and all sorts of schemes, for we could see each other almost any day if necessary." At the New York Experiment Station, Arthur's notable career had gotten under way. On April 16, 1884, he had written Bessey: I have hardly got to work here yet: of course there is no out of door work yet. I am beginning some experiments on the absorption of oxygen by germinat­ ing seeds and accompanying phenomena. I find I am free to plan and execute any investigations I see fit, with the resources of the station at my command. What I shall do in physiological botany I have not determined, but have how­ ever concluded to look into the life and habits of some of the plants that cause diseases of cultivated crops, such as the rusts etc.

On January 30 of the following year he had written again: I have just begun the cultivation of bacteria on solid substratum and hope soon to arrange culture tubes for their cultivation in fluids. I only today planted my pear bacteria and so do not yet know how I shall succeed with them . . . I am just completing a translation of De Bary's article on bacteria in his recent volume . . . I passed through Ann Arbor, Mich., a few days ago and stopped to visit the University. I found Professor Spaulding a genial and accomplished

94

John Merle Coulter

gentleman who is building up a good department, in the right manner and in the right direction. He intends to visit Europe in a year or so to become more familiar with the German methods.

Arthur was not given credit in the Station bulletin for one of his most important contributions—a method by which to arrive statisti­ cally at the "quantity of smut in field oats," and consequent loss. So, because of this and certain believed grievances occasioned by Dr. Sturtevant, the director, after securing his doctor's degree at Cornell, and serving as botanist of the Minnesota Geological and Natural His­ tory Survey one summer at Vermilion Lake in "control of the whole botanical survey" with L. H. Bailey and E. W. D. Holway as as­ sistants, he had continued searching for a new position about which he consulted Bessey considering places in Texas, Indiana, and Maine. None had materialized. In 1885, when the American Association for the Advancement of Science had met in New York City, Dr. Lucien M. Underwood had taken him to an open pasture in the northern part of the Bronx and, showing the site of the proposed New York botanical garden, told of an "ambitious project for the systematic de­ scription of all North American plants, both phanerogamic and cryptogamic, to be issued in parts under the Editorship of Dr. N. L. Britton as material was ready, filling, eventually, thirty or more royal octavo volumes." Professor Underwood, related Arthur, "confided to me that I would probably be asked to supply the manuscript for the volume on the rusts." Arthur was much pleased and had begun ex­ amining all rust collections, taking, as time and money permitted, exploring tours. On September 11, 1887, however, he had written Bessey from Lafayette, Indiana: "School has opened here very pleas­ antly, and I like my position and prospects. I am to teach all the botany and the higher zoology. The department is well equipped. Dr. Smart is already planning the work of the new experiment sta­ tion, and everything will be ready for work as soon as Congress sup­ plies the money." The next year Arthur was made botanist of the experiment station and his title was changed to professor of vegetable physiology and pathology. This appointment was one of the earliest recognitions accorded plant physiology and plant pathology by a col­ legiate institution in the United States. Dr. Goodale had held an ad­ junct professorship in "vegetable physiology" at Harvard many years before.

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

95

On May 7, 1888, however, Coulter had written Farlow, "I have just heard that Dr. Goodale has been appointed to the 'Fisher Pro­ fessorship.' I had no idea that would be done, &, inter nos, there will be considerable subdued growling at it in the botanical fraternity." Goodale's chair was a newly established one. Coulter, it was reliably said, was considered strongly as Gray's successor. If so, he refused as he had several other places which offered him "a change of base." Plant physiology was taught in a number of botany departments in colleges of the United States. And pathology was included. Arthur's position, nevertheless, was a complete recognition of the subjects by an American collegiate institution. Thus with Arthur near, Coulter was able to organize the Gazette in departments. In general terms Coulter took taxonomy and mor­ phology; Barnes, taxonomy and physiology; and Arthur, taxonomy, pathology, and laboratory practice in physiology. The Gazette in 18 8 8 adopted the policy that "every workman is worthy of his hire" and offered one dollar a page to its authors. Coulter, therefore, needed his share of the proceeds from the sixth edition of Gray's Manual. He saw great visions for the Gazette. Stanley Coulter, his brother, was now a professor at Purdue, beginning in zoology and other sub­ jects the year Arthur arrived. Barnes was at Wisconsin, and happy. Barnes wrote Bessey: "With our new scientific President, Botany is looking up here—I shall have excellent laboratory rooms in the new building and $3000 for additional equipment. As we already have a fair supply of excellent microscopes that will help out considerably." In 1883 Bessey had written in the American Naturalist:23 . . . it is gratifying to note the steady growth of the Botanical Gazette, now entered upon its eighth year, enlarged and greatly improved. It is upon a good footing, financially, and Professor Coulter is to be congratulated upon the assured success of his undertaking. The addition of Professor C. R. Barnes and Mr. J. C. Arthur to the editorial force will doubtless enable the Gazette to make still further improvement. . . .

Bessey, as usual, was right. Barnes's and Arthur's "vigor of thought and action" did aid in the improvement of the Gazette. The depart­ mental organization effected in 1883 was in completely active func­ tioning by the year 1888. During the year 1889, Coulter wrote on "Continuity of Proto23 P.

417.

g6

John Merle Coulter

plasm,"24 corrected some observations on Hypericum by "Some Notes on Hypericum,"25 added to the already abundant treatment of Umbelliferae by further "Notes,"26 and, since he had a "capital assistant" and a term's possible work he wanted to study Cactaceae further. There was the question of beginning with the Cambridge collection or the Engelmann collection at the Missouri Botanical Garden at St. Louis. At St. Louis, Dr. Trelease told him, there were "12 cubic feet of them, & many growing in the Shaw Garden." Coulter knew "all our own Cactaceae 'on sight.'" He had a large collection of Arizona and Colorado plants. Someday he planned to go to "the land of Cactaceae & see them in their native haunts." Coulter de­ cided to go to St. Louis first. But conditions that summer and the heat there, of which Engelmann often complained, caused him to postpone going until winter. "In the meantime," he wrote Watson on July 13, "I am occupying my mind by looking over the Cornaceae, of which I seem to have quite a full set. I was first drawn to them by their nearness to the Umbelliferae. There are not many of them, & if I am not treading upon any one's toes I would like to buckle to and give them a raking over, cjust to keep my hand in.'" Coulter asked Watson to send him his and by the end of the year he returned them, believing at the same time they had "Cornus in fairly good shape, though some of it was very perplexing. If any error of treatment has been made," said Coulter, "it is on the side of con­ servatism. I am getting to shrink more & more from making changes. Garrya interests me very much. I wish I had material to work the whole genus." Vasey's, Greene's, John Macoun's, John Donnell Smith's, and I. C. Martindale's collections were afforded him and in February and April 1890 the Gazette published Coulter and Wal­ ter H. Evans's "A Revision of North American Cornaceae" in two parts.27 Nyssa followed Cornaceae. In the stone fruits of Nyssa Coulter found a pretty gradation of characters and he pursued his work in Garrya. Evidently during the holidays Coulter commenced a prac­ tice long sustained—making visits to Joseph Nelson Rose at Wash­ ington who was now connected with the United States National Mu­ seum. Rose and he continued their work in Umbellifers and during 24 26

Botanical Gazette, XIV, 82. Ibid., pp. 274-284..

25 Ibid.., 27

p. 200. Ibid., XVs I, 30-38; II, 86-97.

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

97

1890 they published not only "A New Genus of Umbelliferae"28 but further "Notes."29 On his return Coulter was very busy but in April he wrote Watson: "I have some good things from Nealley's Texas collection to send you soon. A Dep[artmen]t Bulletin will soon be issued containing a list of that collection, with notes, descriptions etc." Coulter in this way began his important Contributions from the United States National Herbarium. In the second number of the first volume was published June 28, 1890, his list "Upon a Collection of Plants Made by Mr. C. G. Nealley in the Region of the Rio Grande, in Texas, from Brazos Santiago to El Paso County."30 That same year the Department of Agriculture at Washington engaged Coulter to prepare a flora of western Texas. Since the pub­ lication of the Rocky Mountain flora and the sixth edition of Gray's Manual Coulter stood preeminent among botanists as a systematist of certain American regions. Coulter had wanted to include New Mexico and both western and eastern Texas in a second edition of his Rocky Mountain Manual. But the work had never been done and Coulter's recent interest in Cactaceae fitted him for the task of giving the western Texas region a manual similar to his Rocky Mountain one. The continuous discovery of new species, especially those com­ ing from Mexico in response to Edward Palmer's and Cyrus Guern­ sey Pringle's explorations, made the task more difficult than he im­ agined. Coulter began to realize that even when completed the work would be "exasperatingly incomplete." During the summer when the labor was at its height John Donnell Smith's collections from Cen­ tral America, Compositae from Guatemala, were placed in Coulter's hands and he realized that a trip to Cambridge would be necessary in the autumn. Later this was deferred to a visit at Christmas time. However, work on the Texas manual continued the while and on August 29, 1890, Coulter wrote Bessey: I am very likely now to get to arrange the orders of the Texan Manual to my liking, & we can see how a modern appearance will look. What I want to ask you is for advice. What do you think is the best ordinal arrangement to spring on an American public? Or have you gone so far as to have blocked out a modified one of your own? I would very much prize your assistance in this matter. 28

Botanical Gazette, XV, 15-16. iii and 29-61, index.

3 0 Pp.

29

Ibii., XV; II, 259-261.

98

John Merle Coulter

On June 27, 1891, as a Contribution from the United States Na­ tional Herbarium was published the first part of Coulter's "Manual of the Phanerogams and Pteridophytes of Western Texas."31 The second part was issued on June 1 of the year following.32 And in 1894 the Gazette carried the announcement that:33 The third and last part of Dr. John M. Coulter's "Manual of the Botany of Western Texas" has been issued by the Department of Agriculture. It contains the apetalae, monocotyledons, gymnosperms, and pteridophytes. The Juncaceae are contributed by F. V. Coville; Carex by L. H. Bailey; Gramineae by L. H. Dewey; and Pteridophyta by L. M. Underwood.

Subsequent to its appearance, Charles E. Bessey in the American NaturalistSi said: Within a few weeks, botanists have received copies of Part III of Dr. John M. Coulter's "Manual." . . . A glance over its pages shows it to be an im­ portant contribution to North American botany, covering, as it does, a region whose botany has hitherto been scattered through many different reports and papers. That the work is well-done, need not be said of anything from the masterhand of Dr. Coulter, who has here shown his ability to make a much needed book. This volume carries southward the area covered by Coulter's "Rocky Mountain Botany," and gives to the author a kind of "preemption right" to a belt of botanical territory stretching from the Canadian line on the north (N. Dakota, Montana and Idaho) to the Mexican boundary on the south (Texas and New Mexico). It will clearly be his duty to enlarge his "Rocky Mountain Botany," so as to take in the territory of the Texan Flora; then by adding the Arizona-Nevada region, make it cover the whole of the Western Highlands, from about the 100th meridian to, but not including the Pacific Coast Region. Such a "Botany of the Western Highlands" would, on' many accounts, be much more likely to be successful than the two or three manuals which it now seems probable we are to have for this region.

Also in 1891 Coulter began the publication of Donnell Smith's materials. That year appeared in the Gazette both "New or Note­ worthy Compositae from Guatemala"35 and "Some New Solanaceae from Guatemala."36 When in 1893 Coulter and Rose issued new "Notes on North American Umbelliferae,"37 the Gazette commented: The two preceding papers of this series were published in this journal No­ vember, 1889, and October, 1890. The present paper is a report upon the Umbelliferae of Mr. John Donnell Smith's third distribution of Guatemalan plants. Most of the species were sent by H. Th. Heyde and Ernst Lux, who have made extensive collections for Mr. Smith. . . . 31 Vol.

II, no. i, pp. v, and 1-152, index, 1 plate. II, no. 2, pp. v, 153-345, index, 2 plates. 33 XIX, 343. 35 Botanical Gazette XVl 95-102. (1894), 707. 1 l 36 Ibid., XVI, 144-145. 37 Botanical Gazette, XVIII, 54. 32 Vol.

34 XXVIII

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

99

Concerning Umbellifers, Coulter had confessed to Watson while preparing their edition of Gray's Manual, "I am no great stickler for my opinions. The Umbellifer business has so many points of view that I was very far from expecting that we would all look at it in the same way. The fact is, I shall probably change my own view in many directions, or at least I hope so, for change of view usually implies increase of knowledge." How well Coulter had learned this! Evolution's study, direct experimental study of development, and inferences as to origins had thoroughly deepened the lesson now more than a decade old. The world was no longer a static thing. The world was dynamic and ever changing. We might strive for sta­ bility—that was desirable—but nothing was fixed in the sense of be­ ing forever settled. Coulter's stature as botanist and man had now been attained. In August 1890 the American Association for the Advancement of Science met at Indianapolis, Coulter began almost a year in ad­ vance to urge botanists to attend. "With Dr. Goodale as President & Dr. Minot V. Pres.," he told Farlow, "all the Harvard scientists should turn out strong." Especially he urged Watson to attend. Section F had as its general theme the geographical distribution of plants. Watson had a paper on the relations of the Mexican flora to that of the United States; Underwood, on hepaticae distribution in North America; Beal, on the grasses; Britton, on general distribu­ tion of North American plants; Halsted, on the migration of weeds; and Coulter had two geographical distribution papers, one on Umbelliferae and another on Cornaceae.38 That year Coulter was elected vice president of Section F. At the Indianapolis meeting he had served as secretary. Again the following year Coulter urged American botanists to attend the association's meeting at Washington. Western botanists were going to be there in large numbers. So Coulter wrote Farlow, "I know you are dreadfully busy, but I believe you have a debt to the aspiring botanists of the country to meet them & make a 'pot shot' once in a while. I speak for their good, not for yours, for probably it is a great bore to you. You are making your laboratories such a center of good American work that I am trying to make our young western s s Proc.

Am. Asso. for Adv. Sci., XXXIX ( 1 8 9 1 ) , 292 and 319.

100

John Merle Coulter

botanists loyal to you & to appreciate what really good work is. Your presence at Washington will help along wonderfully. . . ." Coulter took the opportunity in his vice-presidential address to state his ma­ turing convictions in taxonomy. Contrasting the older system with the new he said:39 Systematic botany, as formerly understood, has probably done all that it can unaided in the natural arrangement of plants. Of course it could indefi­ nitely juggle with sequence and nomenclature, but, after all, that is like ar­ ranging a card catalogue, and is of such secondary importance, when the real purpose of systematic botany is considered, that it can hardly be taken as in­ dicative of progress. . . . But the ancient kind of systematic botany was not left without aid, and a group of new departments was made possible by the micro­ scope and the unexampled progress of powers and manipulation. The study of the cell, and of nascent and mature organs, and the recognition of plants as living things that are the resultant of the interplay of internal and external forces, have simply revivified the ancient mummy called Botany, and have made it the living thing it is today, capable of endless development. . . . To my view, therefore, the real systematic botany is to sum up and utilize the results of all other departments; and its work, so far from belonging entirely to the past, is well nigh all in the future. It is the highest kind of generalization upon an enormous array of facts, and is bound to be the last expression of human thought with reference to plant-life, just as it was the first. Systematic botany, therefore, the systematic botany which deals with genetic characters, and rec­ ognizes the fact that every plant is a living thing with a history and all degrees of consanguinity, and that the "final form of every natural classification must be to approximate to the order of descent," is in its early infancy, and can only develop to completest power when all the facts of plant origin, structure and life are in.

Coulter spoke straight from the shoulder. He argued that the pop­ ular misconception that the whole of botany was the collection and description of plants must be changed in the public mind. Among younger botanists taxonomy was in strange disrepute. Coulter granted that the zeal to find new species sometimes "degenerated into a mania, and sometimes into kleptomania ; but the worst of it is," he continued, "that it attracts many who are wholly incompetent, and who have burdened our literature with rubbish that is both discreditable and confusing." Coulter regarded systematics as the freliminary phase of botany and the collection and description of plants the first phase of systematics. The second phase was the study of life-histories of plants, which he defined as follows: ss Ibid., X L ( 1 8 9 1 ) , 3 - 1 4 . .

The Years at Wabash (Continued)

IOi

By "life-history" I do not mean simply that gross observation which watches a plant from germination to maturity, although that must be considered an extremely useful service; but even more that minute tracing, cell by cell, from the primitive cell to the mature plant, a work which is now conceded to re­ veal more of the deep secrets of affinity than perhaps any other.

In the construction of such a natural system, based on affinities, all botanists could carry the "brick and mortar" and few could be "architects" but even when the structure is raised, said Coulter, it will be a "sort of temporary scaffold" demanding the widest range of information and the highest powers of generalization. Such was "a path-breaking operation," reminding one of a letter written by him to Gray. Some five years earlier, Coulter had answered Gray, "You speak of 'breaking out paths that others can walk easily & profit­ ably in,' but that is both the fate & glory of such pioneers & masters as you represent, & that is really what you have wanted to do for us." Here was Coulter before Section F of the American Association where Gray had appeared, himself a pioneer pointing the next gen­ eration to new paths to new structures in botany. As to ordinary manuals, "books of limited range," their province was still the "ex­ pression of the ascertained facts of affinity," facts having "reached the dignity of general consent." In one address, Coulter had indicated the way for works compassing the established facts and, also, for works breaking out new and enlarged paths of botanical exploration. Coulter indirectly was announcing his own new plans. Farlow was with him in spirit. So were other leading botanists.

CHAPTER VI PRESIDENT OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

C^yARRYiNG a story originating at Bloomington, the seat of In­ diana University, on April 8, 1891, the Indianafolis Journal of the next day announced to its readers: The board of trustees of Indiana University held a special meeting in [Bloomington] to-night and Dr. John [Merle] Coulter, now connected with Wabash College, was elected to succeed Dr. David S. Jordan in the presi­ dency of Indiana University. He received the unanimous vote of the board, no other name being suggested. He has telegraphed the trustees that he will ac­ cept, his term of office to begin upon the resignation of Dr. Jordan. The salary is $4,000 a year.

David Starr Jordan, when selected to go to California to establish Senator Stanford's university, or Leland Stanford University, as it is now known, requested that Coulter succeed him. For some years they had stood as the two leaders of science in Indiana—Jordan in zoology and Coulter in botany. Jordan sought first that Coulter go with him to California but, failing in this, he told him he wished him to take his place as president of Indiana. Bloomington students had been asking for Coulter as their professor of natural science. And, as a matter of fact, Jordan had recommended Coulter for the presidency in 1884 prior to his own election. In 1884 Indiana had conferred an honorary degree on Coulter and the following year sought him as their professor of botany. There was, as a consequence, little choice for Coulter when the presidency was offered him in 1891. Coulter accepted. Jordan had again selected him.1 Coulter was introduced to the university at commencement that year and—yet under forty years of age—gave his inaugural address, "The University Spirit": The thought of man fettered by ignorance or superstition, superstition which may co-exist with a high degree of intelligence, is the great mission field of all educational institutions. . . . The whole effect of a university should be to make men think for themselves. The spirit of a university is therefore neces­ sarily iconoclastic. . . . The true iconoclastic spirit, which it is the mission of a university to foster, is not one that attacks but undermines all existing beliefs in­ consistent with truth. . . . Habits of investigation and resistless deduction are 1 See James Albert Woodbum, History of Indiana University 1820-1902 (Indiana University, 1940), I, 369, 370, and 4.01 ff.

President of Indiana University

103

the things to be cultivated and insisted upon; and when these tempered weap­ ons are turned upon any subject approachable by the intellect of man they pierce straight through the mail of preconceived notions and reach the heart, the truth. . . . When this University abandoned the old patch-work curric­ ulum, and substituted for it elective courses of study, it changed from a false to a true theory of education. By means of it even the intellectually poor stu­ dent of today is doing more, is developing more utilizable brain power, than the brilliant ones of a few years ago; and we have no longer a race of giants and pygmies. . . . The old system not only held down all the dullards but also repressed many of the gifted. It simply roused to great intellectual activity those whose cast of mind was adapted to the only kind of training given.

Coulter could not, nor did he try, to keep from the university his great veneration of Jesus and the Bible.2 He did not shrink from stating the moral aim of a university: The cultivation of character is a prominent duty of a University. I feel strongly upon this point, and I would not think of tolerating for a moment any influence in either professor or pupil that would lower the high standard of morals that must be maintained. Therefore, while all the varying beliefs and disbeliefs must meet here on perfect quality, as is befitting an intellectual community seeking for truth in every direction, we must all unite in one be­ lief, that the only kind of life worth living is that one which is governed by the highest moral principles. As for myself, I find the best statement of these principles in the utterances of the great Nazarene.

Under Dr. Jordan's regime, a new epoch in the university's his­ tory had been started.3 Jordan had reorganized the college curricu­ lum and this Coulter approved and carried on. Jordan had brought the university into closer relationship with the high schools of the state. This Coulter endorsed and carried on, adding, also, greatly to the extension work of the school sending lecturers to give courses in the college curriculum at places such as Indianapolis, Evansville, Louisville, Chicago, New Albany, Jeffersonville, Fort Wayne, Spiceland, and Rochester. So prominent became this work that the Review of Reviews in 1893 gave an article to it. In its first year, it is said, 700 students were taking extension work. Jordan had increased the facilities of the scientific laboratories. Needless to say, under Coulter, they did not suffer either. The In­ diana School of Law had been revived during Jordan's administra­ tion. By virtue of the extension work and professorial visits over the state, the work of the university under Coulter became widely 2

Coulter's first chapel address was on the theme, "Christ, our Pattern." See Samuel Bannister Harding, Indiana University 1820-1904 Historical Sketch (Bloomington, Indiana, 1904), pp. 21, 35, 66, and 185. 3

104

John Merle Coulter

known and the next legislature voted an appropriation of $50,000 for a new building.4 On Coulter's arrival he had been confronted with a large task in the faculty. Not only was there discord in some places but Jordan had taken with him seven members, among them, Douglas Houghton Campbell, a brilliant investigator in botany, graduate of Michigan, and one who had established a splendid record in studies abroad. For months after his election, Coulter interviewed at Crawfordsville prospective candidates, and finally organized a young and enthusi­ astic group. Moreover, he did not neglect the religious life of the university as some feared, being a scientist, he might do. In the first year of his administration a branch of the Young Men's Christian Association was organized and he took great interest in its work. Later in 1901 he wrote on The Policy of the Young Men's Christian Association: a historical study of association relationships; and also, The Student Young Men's Christian Association as it Relates to the Entire Association Movement.5 Coulter by this time had a number of unpublished lectures: "Car­ nivorous Plants," "Fossil Man," "Cliff Dwellers," "Physical Basis of Life," and "Germ Theory of Disease." One on "Practical Educa­ tion" was given to the students of the university and published dur­ ing 1891.6 His lectures possessed a spontaneity and ease for which he became nationally known. Education to Coulter was "one of the most complex problems we are called upon to solve. . . . A superficial view may lead to one conclusion," he said, "and a careful dissection to a very different one. The trouble is that many have the superficial view, and the few do the dissecting." Coulter feared system in edu­ cation. What he wanted was "development of mental muscle." But the catch-phrase is the one already mentioned, "practical education," for it captivates the plain every-day business sense of this most practical age, the age of "self-made men." A "self-made man" is of necessity a failure; but a man of intelligence, with such teachers as Nature all about him, experience, the hardest of taskmasters, God speaking through his conscience and in his word, all directing him under the lash of an unquenchable longing for some­ thing better—such a man is educated; perhaps not in the formulae of the 4 Joseph Swain, "Forty Years of Indiana," Centennial Memorial Volume (University of Indiana, 1921), p. 333. In this same volume is an address by Coulter delivered at the Centennial entitled, aXhe New Spirit," pp. 324 S. 5 Published by Secretarial Institute and Training· School of the Y.M.C.A. 6 Indianapolis, Carlon & Hollenbeck, Printers.

President of Indiana University

io^

schools, which are but as husks, the outward trappings, but in that development of mental muscle which gives him an iron grip upon affairs, he is every inch an educated man. . . . From the valley at Fabyan's, in a comfortable seat upon a broad veranda, one looks out upon the noble forms of Mt. Washington and its associates, with their rugged sides and dark forests, their heads up among the clouds, and the glory of the sunlight over it all. The mountains look peaceful, the cloud seems to rest like a filmy veil about the summits, and so your impression of mountain and cloud is made, something that a glance can take in, and then you turn to some other view. But wait! Suppose, with staff in hand and muscles trained, you begin to climb. At first the way is smooth enough; but soon the road is steep and rough, the rocks are wilder, the forest darkens, and the breath quick­ ens as muscles begin to feel the strain of effort. Higher and higher you push along the toilsome way. Will it never end? Are the rocks and the forest and the steep ascent endless? Up, up, till the breath is gone, the muscles quiver, the brain throbs, and you sink upon some deep couch of moss to rest. Glancing downward, the world lies at your feet; fields, plains, valleys, mountains, stretch out in endless succession, and such a view, such thoughts as enter you then, were never yours before. But still there is height above, and throbbing heart, and straining muscles, and the steep, rough road are yours again, as you press up, up, up; until at last the moment comes when your feet are on the loftiest summit. The wild desolation of ruin is everywhere, a blinding, driving mist storms wildly all about you, and you are dazed with the ceaseless din. You are alone in awful solitude, a pigmy in the presence of tremendous size and force; your own littleness settles down upon you; the greatness and majesty of nature fills your soul; and then, suddenly, the mist is torn aside, and you get a glimpse of a vision that no art can portray, no tongue of man describe, a glimpse of far-off lands and cloudless skies. Which is education in mountain and cloud, the lazy on-looking from the porch, or that long, rough road, the driving mist, and the vision?

One reads this and recalls Coulter's ascent of the Mountain of the Holy Cross in Colorado with the Hayden Survey. He knew whereof he spoke. On April 20 Coulter wrote Benjamin Lincoln Robinson at Har­ vard, "I shall have turned over to my hands a full faculty, some 30 men, and after that I can make any changes I think advisable. . . . While not seeing my way clear to an immediate appointment, I con­ sider the present arrangement in botany, but a temporary one. There have been appointed 2 very competent assistants, & my only teaching is to be a course or two of botanical lectures." Coulter planned to re­ tain for himself the chair of systematic botany but expected to "ap­ point a full professor of morphological & cryptogamic botany" and for this he sought Robinson, as first on the list of "desirables." How­ ever, these plans did not materialize. When the school year 1891-

io6

John Merle Coulter

1892 opened, Coulter was professor of botany, David Myers Mottier and Henry Eliason Seaton were instructors with the last named in charge of the herbarium. Courses in elementary botany, in mor­ phology consisting of a study of cell-contents and tissues and mor­ phology and classification of phanerogams, and in advanced botany were offered. Postgraduate work leading to an advanced degree was also given. Coulter transferred his herbarium and library from Wabash and immediately the board of trustees gave him $2,000 to buy plants and $1,500 for books. The Gazette announced: The Herbarium of Indiana University was established upon the election last April of Professor John M. Coulter, as President. In addition to private material already in the possession of Professor Coulter, a liberal appropriation for the purchase of plants was made. All the well-known collectors of phaner­ ogams and pteridophytes were asked to furnish as complete sets of their col­ lections as possible, and these purchases now amount to over 15,000 species of North American plants. It is expected that the collection of books and plants will increase as rapidly as material for purchase or exchange becomes accessible. . . .7

Soon afterward the University purchased the entire herbarium of J. H. Horsford of Charlotte, Vermont, who had accompanied Pringle on journeys into New England and other regions. Many of the speci­ mens showed "Pringle's handiwork" it was said, and containing also Canadian and probably Mexican species laid foundations for further systematic work by Coulter and his assistants, especially for a pro­ posed monograph of North American Cactaceae. Once again the in­ fluence of taxonomic studies both at the Gray herbarium and the United States Department of Agriculture was showing itself in Coul­ ter's plans. However, morphological studies were becoming more important than systematic. Coulter had a class in systematic botany but it con­ sisted mainly of personally directed research. Mottier took morphol­ ogy and with laboratories occupying four rooms in Owen Hall, fully equipped with microscopes, microtomes, and all reagents necessary for studying plant structure, a group of unusually bright and capable students became more and more excited and interested, spending most of their time in pursuit of the elusive but fast-growing study. Twen7 Botanical Gazette, XVII (1892), 29. See also Annual Catalogue (1892-1900) of the Indiana University for the 68th college year, 1891-1892.

President of Indiana University

107

ty-one Zeiss microscopes and a Minot microtome had been added to the equipment. Under Campbell important subjects had been selected for graduate theses. The 1891-1892 catalogue said: During the past year graduate students have been at work upon the follow­ ing subjects in the preparation of theses: Development of the archegonium and apical growth of the stem in Tsuga Canadensis and Pinus syIvestris; Flora of Mt. Orizaba (based upon collections made during 1891) ; The organogeny of Aster and Solidago; Revision of Hoffmanseggia and Dalea.

But, by and large, the work was not experimental. Even advanced morphology consisted principally of going into details of life-history studies. It was still the early beginnings of phylogeny. Coulter, like De Bary, Strasburger and other of the Europeans, saw the necessity for working out life relations of plants. He lectured on plant physi­ ology occasionally. He kept alert to the science in its growth. But the texts used were largely compilations of the work of the Germans and the French. Coulter could not do much laboratory work. Although adminis­ trative duties as president occupied most of his time he was working on the preparation of a textbook and also had inaugurated a series of Sunday lectures, inspirational in character. Two of his subjects the first year were "Singleness of Purpose" and "Education as a Moral Force." Nevertheless, Coulter's quick precision in realizing the value of botanical work caused him to publish in the Gazette the graduate studies of Indiana students. In 1892 there appeared "Development of the Flower and Embryo-sac in Aster and Solidago,"8 by G. W. Mar­ tin, a teacher of the Indianapolis high schools, in which the author acknowledged both aid and direction from Coulter and Mottier. That same year also appeared Mottier's own study, "On the Archegonium and Apical Growth of the Stem in Tsuga Canadensis and Pinus sylvestris."9 Mottier authored the work but the finishing style of Coul­ ter, his first teaching associate, is clearly evident. To determine the true relationship existing between the different groups of the plant kingdom is yet a problem of great interest to botanists. The genea­ logical tree is still largely hypothetical and must necessarily remain so for some time to come. Now and then modern research fills up a gap or throws some light on the true line of development. The gymnosperms, holding as they do a position between the pteridophytes and angiosperms, are perhaps as interesting as perplexing. It is, however, chiefly 8

Botanical Gazette, XVII, 353, 406.

9

Ibid., p. 141.

108

John Merle Coulter

in the study of the reproduction, the development of the embryo and the meristems of stem and root that we are to look for the true affinities of the neigh­ boring groups. Several representative types of the gymnosperms have been carefully studied by Hofmeister and, later, by Strasburger and others. Since more accurate meth­ ods have come into use some of the work done by these botanists has been re­ peated, especially in cases concerning which there was doubt or difference of opinion.

The "genealogical tree" concept did not last. This quotation, how­ ever, quite aptly illustrates the American laboratory work at this time. It sought either to revise or to extend researches begun in Europe. Mottier had been Campbell's student. Campbell had studied abroad. Coulter had studied the European literature. Both had a share in Mottier's thesis. "In Wabash, in Purdue, and a little later in Indiana, the work began," said Coulter, "presently extending to all the colleges, and finally invading the high schools. Not only did instruction in modern morphology begin, but also research and mor­ phological papers began to issue from several of our laboratories."10 The real work was to extend the study. Later, when a young botanist, Charles J. Chamberlain, was to hear of Coulter, the recollection of these two articles published in the Gazette would influence greatly his estimate of the senior botanist. Moreover, the Gazette as a pub­ lication would increasingly become devoted to the publication of such studies. Taxonomy, however, remained most important with Coulter. Early in 1892 Watson died and on March 14 Coulter wrote Rose, "What in the world are they going to do at Cambridge?" By the following May he answered his query, "Yes, Dr. Goodale writes that Robinson is to be kept in charge. He is a pleasant fellow, but can yet be but little more than a man to keep the rooms in order." With Rose, Coulter, of course, was still working on Umbelliferae and the Texan manual in­ volving as it did Cactaceae. Around him a new group of botanists was assembling, some of whom had followed him from Wabash to Indiana. In 1892-1893 Seaton's place on the faculty was taken by Edwin B. Uline, and Elmon M. Fisher became curator of the her­ barium. Seaton was a most promising botanist. On May 28, 1891, while still at Crawfordsville, Coulter had lent him to Rose as one "particularly skillful in Ferns & Compositae. . . . He went through 19

"A Century of Botany in Indiana," o f . c i t .

President of Indiana University

109

Smith's Guatemalan collection in masterly style," said Coulter. In 1892 Seaton went to Harvard for work and at the Gray Herbarium "was bringing to the study of systematic botany the knowledge of general morphology" when death interposed and stopped his prom­ isingly useful career. His death was a great loss to Coulter. How­ ever, Coulter turned to Uline and Fisher. And he had another stu­ dent in whom he placed great hope—William L. Bray. Bray and Uline worked together. So systematic work depended largely on Fisher. In 1892 Coulter published with Fisher "Some New North American Plants."11 Occasionally in the pages of the Gazette had ap­ peared notices of more or less importance, usually in collaborations with Rose, as, for examples, aPithecolobium Texense, Coulter"12 and uActinella (Hymenoxis) Texana, n.sp."13 The president of Indiana University, though also professor of botany, did not have much spare time for botany. He had found that one of his reasons for coming to Indiana—more ample facilities in botany—was ephemeral. The more time passed, the more Dr. Coulter was in the large affairs of state welfare in Indiana.14 His address, "Biology in Secondary Schools" was indicative of his influence. In it an entire outline of a proposed biological study in high schools, and in the grade schools, was given. Coulter, like Jordan, was interested in integrating their work with that of the college. The plea, of course, was for the combination of laboratory facilities with the regular course of instruction. Botany was more than a study of books and flowers. A moss, toadstool, seaweed, the red, green and brown algae were also important. Coulter even went the length of naming the plants which should represent the simplest forms, the algae, the fungi, the stoneworts, the bryophytes, the pteridophytes, the gymnosperms, and phanerogams. He argued: In the solid year of high school work that view of comparative morphology is to be obtained whose facts can be included under the head of minute anatomy. Lest I should be misunderstood at this point by botanists and zoologists I am compelled to explain that function should never be separated from structure, and that, of course, any study of the structure of an organ is simply prelim­ inary to raising the question as to its function. From my point of view, there­ fore, any study of comparative morphology is not only bound up with general 11

12 Ibid., XV, 269-270. Botanical Gazette, XVII, 348-352. Ibid., XVI, 27-28. 14 The February number of the Indiana Student, 1893, published Coulter's address, "The School and the State." 13

110

John Merle Coulter

physiology, but loses its whole point when this is lost sight of. Not all questions as to function can be answered, for Physiology is yet in its infancy, but it is none the less important that such questions should be continually raised. . . . The study of a plant consists of the examination of all its essential features, such as cell-structure, its mode of development, its reproduction, in short, as much of its life-history as possible. . . . . . . I am coming more and more to regard our venerated entrance re­ quirement as demanding a "lop-sided" development, and I am compelled to say that this demand for one-sided students is greater in the East than in the West, possibly on account of the greater conservatism of the former. I must confess that along with my great love for the classics there will intrude the conviction that a little less language and a little more laboratory science in college entrance requirements would better prepare a student for the varied activities of college work. . . .15

It seems that, though many times Coulter was called upon in Indiana to comply with official obligations by delivering addresses, attending conferences, and serving his state in many capacities, he al­ ways found some way of advancing the interests of science therewith. Of course, he was called upon to entertain legislators quite often. He enjoyed this as he was a sociable man. But the task of raising money was difficult. When he returned from conferences with legis­ lators, it is said, he always felt like washing his hands—not because he did not enjoy the legislators for he had many genuine interests in common with them—but because he did not enjoy asking for money. However, he was a good financier as demonstrated by his financing the Gazette on a professor's small salary with a large fam­ ily to feed, clothe, and shelter. The legislators voted confidence in him by granting appropriations, something which not all Indiana colleges were fortunate in obtaining. Nevertheless Coulter chafed more than once in silence. Barnes had to take over most of the responsibilities of the Gazette. That was not altogether to his liking as the Gazette was after all his publica­ tion. Many of the editorials fell to his Jot and Coulter wrote them well. Editorials by the three editors were on varied subjects: on labo­ ratory apparatus in botany that was being devised in response to the new methods of investigation, on the new democracy in botany and the "fads" and "erratic movements" that were inevitable with no aristocracy to hold the courses to conservative channels, on nomenclatural matters and the principle of expediency argued for and 15 Published

in The School Review.

President of Indiana University

111

against. But Coulter, it is believed, did most of the editorializing. One ! editorial was of especial interest:16 Botanists, particularly those of the upper Mississippi valley, have been watch­ ing with considerable interest the formation of the faculty of the new Chicago University. Hopes have been raised, as we noted the high scholarship and par­ ticularly the high degree of specialization of the men that were being appointed, that the chair of botany would be filled with some specialist of repute, and that thus the new institution would set the pace for some of the older ones that have shown themselves laggards. But we confess that it was with a feeling of sore disappointment that we read in the Chicago papers of the appointment of a professor of "biology." Apparently it is to be the old story of zoology masquerading in borrowed plumage as biology, for the gentleman who has been appointed is a well-known zoologist. As to his qualification on the botanical side we know nothing, but we do know that no one can teach biology properly in such an institution as the Chicago University bids fair to be. It would be a difficult feat for one man to teach zoology alone or botany alone, as it should be taught; to ask him to teach both savors too much of the time when a man could be "professor of natural science." It is sincerely to be hoped that President Harper will see to it that the chair of biology is divided before zoology teaching comes to stand for biology in the institution from which we expect so much. . . . In this connection we are much pleased to note the establishment of a new chair of histology and cryptogamic botany at Cornell University. This is a move in the right direction.

Some years before Liberty Hyde Bailey Jr. had gone to Cornell to occupy the new chair of horticulture at that institution. Not many years had passed before his leadership in studies in plant breeding, in cross-fertilization and hybridization, in biogenetics and evolution was recognized. In fact, during 1891 and 1892, was published a lecture by him regarded as excellent. Bailey's studies, including his manuals, texts, and systematic works, encompassed not only horticul­ ture but botany although as years went by he became more or less an "absentee" in botany as he developed at Cornell its great work in agriculture. Bailey studied plants seeking to arrive at principles of plant variation and their relations to climate and environmental factors—horticulturally. Illustrated by electro-horticulture under glass, field, and trades resource surveys, and extension work, ad­ vances were being made which widened American study. The depart­ ment of botany also became one of the strongest of the nation with such leaders as George Francis Atkinson, Benjamin M. Duggar, 16

Botanical Gazette, XVII ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 94.

112

John Merle Coulter

Rowlee, Wiegand, and others. Small wonder that Coulter watched the progress at Cornell. One of his and Stanley Coulter's closest friends was there—Liberty Hyde Bailey Jr. That Harper and Coulter were acquainted at the time the above editorial was written is quite probable. It is related that once Harper heard Coulter speak and concluded there was a man he must have on his faculty. Perhaps it was the editorial that induced Harper to go to hear Coulter. This much, however, is certain. They became in­ timate friends while Coulter was yet at Indiana. One other explana­ tion is also possible—Bessey. From 1888 to 1891 Bessey had been acting chancellor of the Uni­ versity of Nebraska. His growth, though not along the same lines, had been as far-reaching as Coulter's. In 1883 Bessey had been a delegate to the American Forestry Congress at St. Paul. There he had met pioneer advocates of forestation projects in Nebraska. Bessey described what happened in his own words: In the study of the vegetation of the Nebraska plains the peculiar distribu­ tion of the trees and shrubs soon attracted my attention, and this resulted in the preparation of a series of small maps showing the area occupied by each species. This led to some important generalizations as to the origin of our woody plants with the conclusion that to a great extent they are migrants from the eastern flora, a few only having come down the slopes from the Rocky Mountains. A special study of the western yellow pine (Pinus scofulorum) showed that it had once been widely [scattered] throughout the northern, central, and western portions of the state. From this it was an easy step to the suggestion that the sandhills of central Nebraska might be made to grow pines. Once this thought was entertained, it was not long before the idea of forest planting reservations took shape, first as state reservations and later as reservations of the National Government. . . . Repeated and prolonged visits afterwards to the Rocky Mountains im­ pressed upon me the great importance of the forest cover about the headwaters of the rivers that rise in that region. Here it was not man's vandalism, but man's carelessness that swept away the forests. Instead of destruction by the axe and saw, it was destruction by forest fires. . . . The destruction was as complete here as in the lumber regions of Michigan, but here the evil was more far reaching. In Michigan there was the destruction of the trees, and the exposure of the ground under conditions unfavorable to reforestation, in the Rocky Mountains there was the same destruction of the forest with similar adverse conditions as to reforestation, and in addition there was the destruction of the continuous water supply for the great rivers that rise in the mountains. And these rivers are those whose waters are carried out upon the plains in irrigation ditches to render them fertile. Living upon the plains, this phase of

President of Indiana University

113

the forest problem became one of the greatest interest to me, and quite nat­ urally I became an earnest advocate of the conservation of the forests. . . .

So forestry became one of Bessey's large interests. The other, dis­ tinguishable from Coulter's work, was his already mentioned inter­ est in the study of plant diseases. In September 1884 Bessey had delivered his inaugural address as professor of botany and horticulture at the University of Nebras­ ka. At first, when the offer of changing from Iowa Agricultural had arrived, Bessey had rejected it on grounds of unsuitability of the fa­ cilities. Then, too, he was a botanist and not a horticulturist. An ap­ propriation of $5,000, however, was made available for him. And it was understood that he was to be professor of botany and "frefare the way for horticulture." The University of Nebraska at that time was entirely in Lincoln. The farm, also owned, was eight miles distant where a "job lot" of a dozen students imagined they were study­ ing agriculture. Bessey began with two tasks. On the Lincoln cam­ pus he had the lawn mowed; he planted verbenas, geraniums, coieus, petunias, and other flowers; he cut down the prevalent cottonwoods and planted in the northwest part rare trees and shrubs; and im­ mediately began to equip his laboratory on the third floor of Uni­ versity Hall. The students at the farm were given an examination and, all failing, gradually disappeared. Agriculture and horticulture suffered a while. But Bessey continued to do much for the farmer. Showing by lec­ tures the value of seed selection and crop rotation for improvement of crops, he caught their interest. And in his inaugural address, when he also assumed the duties of the deanship of the Industrial College, he remarked that "could the Industrial College solve the problem [of the cereal rusts] within the next ten or twenty years it would re­ pay a thousand fold its cost to the people." The study of injurious fungi, begun at Iowa Agricultural, continued at Nebraska and by Au­ gust 1885 Bessey was insisting that, "The vegetable pathologist must build his science upon that of his fellow worker in vegetable physi­ ology, and the results of the labor of both must be laid before modern Agriculture for its use."17 That same year the university established a five hour course in "diseases of plants." 17 From an address, "The Demands made by Agriculture upon the Science of Botany," a paper read before the Society for the Promotion of Agricultural Science.

ii4

John Merle Coulter

Bessey's greatest influence perhaps was in his textbooks. Contem­ poraneous with his inauguration at Nebraska appeared his Essentials of Botany, a work evidently first issued as a guide for beginners or condensed version of his larger treatise, Botany for High Schools and Colleges. The Essentials was received, like the Botany·, with praise. Prentiss, Harrington, Perkins, Hilgard, and others lined up behind Bessey's works. Beal wrote Bessey on March 22, 1880: I am much pleased with your book. It starts off rather high for beginners, but you have to train beginners for it. There's none of that "foggyness" in the text which we sometimes meet in Dr. Gray's Text book (Criticisms) A chapter somewhere on how to work would be acceptable to many. I do not mean to take the place of a book on the microscope. An example, say of squash, worked clear through from beginning to end illustrating main features suits me. There are objections to it. There are advantages, you keep your eye on one thing. What can be wiser than Huxley's cray fish ? for example ? You will think I have not criticized you much: then you should have made a poorer book. I have been unable to give it much time. I shall try it with a class once, then I can tell better. No one can make a book which will in all respects suit another if that one has any originality.

In 1884, moreover, Beal wrote again: . . . I forgot to thank you for the copy of the Essentials of Botany. I have looked over many parts of it quite carefully & I am very glad to get the book and presume I shall have some of my classes use it. . . .

December 2, 1884, Goodale wrote: Herewith I send a notula regarding your excellent little book. I hope you are pleasantly situated in your new home. How far it seems away!

The years went by. Bessey became known as one of the greatest teachers of the West, an advocate of life in the West, and one of its most potent influences in the growing academies of sciences in Iowa and Nebraska, serving both as president} one of the most powerful influences in the State Teachers' Association of Nebraska, and its president in 1888; and an influential member of the National Edu­ cational Association. In 1888 he went to Europe, studying in the Kew Gardens and visiting several continental and English botanical labo­ ratories. That same year he was made dean of the college of literature, science and arts and also acting chancellor of the University of Ne­ braska and in these capacities served three years. A member of both the American and British Associations for the Advancement of Sci­ ence, in 1892 he was made chairman of Section F of the American

PresidentofIndianaUniversity

115

Association and, with many other honors and responsibilities placed upon him, became one of the strongest single factors in the develop­ ment of North American Botany. In 1893 he issued a volume, Ele­ mentary Botanical Exercises, and in 1894 wrote his publisher: . . . As to the necessary revision of the "Essentials." It is now more than ten years since it was written, as it is more than fifteen years since the larger book was written. In these years many changes have come into the Science of" Botany, and it is impossible to keep these books abreast of the recent work without re-writing. There are many places where I could use the old matter without change, where in fact I should not want to change anything, but the changes elsewhere would make it impossible to fit in the old plates. In using the Essentials year after year in my classes, I find that I modify more and more of it annually. I don't use it as it is, and I don't want other people to use it without change. . . .

The truth was, work in new botanical systematization had im­ pressed on him the need of revision. Even more important, practically the entire science of plant physiology had developed since the original editions of the Essentials. Both in large part were in response to in­ vestigations initiated i n botany after t h e publication of his Botany for High Schools and Colleges. On January 28, 1895, Goodale wrote Bessey, "I do not often enough write you to tell you of the pleasure I take in your good work, but be assured that I do so, all the same." Goodale had influenced Bessey's work. So had Barnes. On February 19, 1890, Barnes had written: According to agreement I send you the first installment of the copy of my physiological experiments as re-arranged for this year. Have your students make memoranda on any you use & let me have the benefit of your experience. These are only the barest outlines. I supplement with explicit directions. Of course, I shall send you the remainder as copied.

Plant physiology as a real branch of American botany was by 1890 well on its way to a start, no longer a companion science to plant pathology as in many instances it originally had been. It was by now developing as an experimental science of independent standing. Coul­ ter had realized this when he went to Indiana University as president, though as professor of botany he did not introduce experimental physiology except as an incident to morphological study in the cur­ riculum. Probably the proximity of Arthur and his work at Purdue brought this realization home. Doubtless Barnes corresponded with him on the subject, as, since the years at Hanover, Barnes had taken keen interest in physiological experimentation. Arthur was com-

n6

John Merle Coulter

mencing one of the most valuable of his several notable contributions to science. He was commencing to devise original apparatus, some cop­ ied from original designs by both Europeans and Americans, for extending physiological studies in American laboratories without having to import expensive instruments from abroad. On April 28, 1894, Arthur would write Bessey, "Your order will make the third auxanometer and sixth centrifugal apparatus sold, which is sufficiently encouraging to warrant me in continuing their manufacture and be­ ginning other apparatus during the summer." In 1892 there came to him a student from Depauw University— Daniel Trembly MacDougal—who with a window sill for a labo­ ratory had commenced about 1888 the study of physiology using typewritten schedules of experiments prepared by Arthur, said by MacDougal to have constituted "the first attempt of its kind in an American school."18 MacDougal, during the next half century, would contribute much to the advancement of the study of plant physiology in America. In 1892 the Gazette published the beginnings of his first important study, "The Tendrils of Passiflora coerulea"13 in which it was pointed out that nearly all previous work had beerr concerned chiefly with outward phenomena of movement rather than morpho­ logical changes and structural conditions. The present work had been undertaken to determine factors in movements of tendrils of Passiflora, "more particularly the movements by which a tendril responds to a stimulus, resumes its original position, or on continuance of the irritation coils permanently, and its subsequent changes while coiled and serving as a support for the weight of the adjacent part of the plant body." Studies had been made of the tendril's development in all of its stages of growth. It was a beginning and soon MacDougal's superior ability was to be recognized. The analogy of Coulter and Bessey is more apparent in their at­ titudes and activities than in their special interests, although both were intensely interested in morphology and were perhaps the two greatest teachers of the subject in America. In fact, while yet at Wa­ bash, Coulter had hung Bessey's picture in one of his advanced labo­ ratories "to help inspire" some of the students. "Some of them need 18 "Th e

Water Relations of Desert Plants," Popular Science Monthly, LXXIX (1911),

54°· 19 XVII

(1892), 205-212; XVIII (1893), 123-130.

PresidentofIndianaUniversity

117

all sorts of stimulus, you know," said Coulter to Bessey. The labora­ tory was one in morphology. On June 1, 1892, Coulter wrote Bessey, "I am much obliged for your kind words with reference to the last editorial in the 'Gazette.' I really felt that the time had come to say that very thing, and I believe that it is always better to speak right out and not keep mincing along." Since Bessey's letter is lost, as to which editorial in the Gazette they had reference, one cannot be certain. There were many editorials at this time, sometimes several in one issue, with every issue having at least one. Bessey, however, like Coulter, took much interest in universities of the Middle West and West and it may be that Bessey heartily agreed with what Coul­ ter had said concerning botany's being given no separable place at the new Chicago University. Coulter had modelled his department at Indiana University somewhat after Bessey's department at Ne­ braska. On July 18, 1892, Coulter had written Bessey again: I am very much interested in your Sem[inar of] Bot [any] as shown in your program of June 13th. Please have some of its members give me full information concerning its workings. I have thought of some such thing here and would like to know your plans.

That year Coulter established at Indiana a botanical society, "an organization of advanced students and the instructors in Botany, which [met] bi-weekly to discuss current Botanical literature, reviews of books, and papers which [embodied] the results of original investiga­ tion in the laboratories." There were other objectives such as keeping the general public in touch with botanic study by lectures from bota­ nists of note. Criticisms of the courses of instruction and suggestions for advancing the science generally were also included. Coulter and Bessey, from the beginning of their teaching, made remarkable progress with their students. Bessey, during his early years at Nebraska, developed three students who later became deans in three of America's most important universities: Roscoe Pound, later the great dean of the law school at Harvard; Herbert J. Web­ ber, later an acting dean at Cornell; and Albert Frederick Woods, a dean, director, and president in absence of the president of the Uni­ versity of Minnesota, and since then president of the University of Maryland and director of scientific work of the United States De­ partment of Agriculture, a most able man, in large part responsible

ii8

John Merle Coulter

for early development of the federal Bureau of Plant Industry and the later development of the department's important graduate school of agriculture. These men served Bessey as assistants. And his fourth assistant was Frederic E. Clements, later one of America's most pro­ found botanists. Other than these were such notable students as Conway MacMillan and Jared Gage Smith and many others. Both Coulter and Bessey were personally very stimulating. While Bessey was the more powerful personality of the two, Coulter was the better lecturer. Bessey pursued Agassiz's method more—walking around the laboratory, interviewing every student, encouraging them with a manifest interest in their work, imparting an inspiration invaluable and unending. Coulter, on the other hand, inspired his students through his marvelous scholarly articulation, his literary as well as scientific sense, his ability to dramatize metaphorically and simply the most difficult scientific explanations. His method was more that of Gray—an abundance of enthusiasm showing radiantly through his words. Bessey, with his early interest in plant geography, gave not only Conway MacMillan his original inspiration but also Pound and Clements. Bessey had aided in establishing botanical laboratories at both the universities of California and Minnesota. In a sense Bessey is the founder of modern ecological studies in America, although the first concrete expressions developing this branch of botany in this country came principally from his students, MacMillan, Pound, and Clements. MacMillan, in his study of "The Metaspermae of the Minnesota Valley"20 and "Observations on the Distribution of Plants along Shore at Lake of the "Woods,"21 published a few years later, laid the foundation in America for the development of ecology. MacMillan hoped that ecological studies would come into vogue as a consequence of his work. They did. Botanists went once again from their laboratories into the field. Similarly, Bessey placed in Pound's care a work by Oscar Drude, Handbuch der Pjlanzengeografhie, for review in the Naturalist. Pound's interest was at once caught. He began to apply its principles to Nebraska regions. A measured square would be taken and counting, rather than observing, the flora, after 20 Botanical Gazette, XVIII (1893), 14.6 reviews the work, a list of the higher seedproducing plants indigenous to the drainage-basin of the Minnesota River, a report of the Geological and Natural History of Minnesota, Botanical Series I. 21Reviewed in American Naturalist by Pound and Clements, XXXI (1897), 980.

President of Indiana University

119

a certain number of distances had been covered, one might know ex­ actly what constituted the floral covering. Bessey had become state botanist on going to Nebraska and as part of his work studying the state's vegetation, a state survey was pro­ jected, using students of his classrooms for field and study purposes. The "Sem. Bot.," primarily a student organization, of which Bessey was an ardent patron, became an organization of some consequence about 1888 and took over much of the task, particularly of determin­ ing the phytogeography of Nebraska. Pound was Bessey's first as­ sistant and his interest was largely in the flowering plants. Although on his graduation in 1888 he went away to law school, when he re­ turned to Nebraska he gave as much time as possible to phytogeographical studies. Webber took his place as assistant and, being much interested in fungi, led "fungus forays" over the state, becoming an instructor and contributing several valuable works on Nebraska flora, including consideration of rusts and smuts. Graduating in 1889 and receiving an advanced degree in 1890, Webber was followed by Woods, who started the first separate laboratory of plant physiology at Nebraska, out of which grew "field physiology," the study of plant relationships—in algae and ferns, fungi, flowering plants, etc. Dur­ ing the period of 1888-1892, the work continued intensively until they had covered nearly every foot of the state. As Clements came forward, showing results of the elder student Pound's influence, and when Per Axel Rydberg began his remarkable botanical explorations, especially in the West, the fame of Bessey's work as all-round, fin­ ished, and inclusive study was established. Herbert J. Webber added to the luster of Bessey's name by an­ other kind of work. Arthur, in the study of fungous diseases and rusts, was doing one special kind of work in plant diseases. Webber commenced similar but not the same kind of studies. On September 30, 1890, from the Shaw School of Botany at St. Louis, he wrote Bessey: . . . We have but very few students. Trelease delivers lectures twice a week to a class in general structural Botany, similar to our preparatory class but more thorough. This is a freshman class. Collecting material to illustrate these lectures is my largest job, but fine training for me. All forms of bark, pith, buds, tubers, etc. everything must be illustrated by an actual specimen. In this, the gardens are very handy. Be­ sides this class we have only a few senior ladies, working through your es-

120

John Merle Coulter

sentials and a small class (don't know how many yet) in Botanical Micro­ scopy and Histology meeting Saturday forenoon only. The class in your Essen­ tials meets twice a week. The last two classes are small and unimportant and are left entirely to my supervision. I was admitted to candidacy for Ph.D. without examination. I shall work on the subject you suggested, the relationship between the orders Polycarpiae and Helobiae. I presume I will narrow it down finally. My chemicals and ap­ paratus I shall order myself. This I like. I find it very difficult to get material just now but will be able to grow almost anything I want. . . .

In 1892 Webber was taken from the Shaw School and he and Walter T. Swingle, who had been working on citrus fruit diseases before, went to Eustis, Florida, on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture to establish the famous subtropical labo­ ratory of the department. Swingle one year earlier had gone to Florida, in the company of Erwin F. Smith, to study an orange dis­ ease known as "the wilt," and while there envisioned the tremendous possibilities of scientific development in the citrus industry. Imme­ diately Webber and Swingle began studies in orange blight, on the transpiration of healthy and diseased plants, along with histological investigations of leaves and conducting tissue of healthy and diseased limbs. Such work was typical of plant disease study of that day. Be­ fore turning attention to the control or cure for diseases, they studied and described in many instances the disease-producing agency, if discernible, its nature and manifestation. On November 21, 1892, Webber wrote Bessey: Once more I am settled and am getting down to work. We arrived in Eustis October 25 nearly a month ago now, so I may speak as an old residenter. Our trip from Washington to Eustis we found very interesting. We took the trip down the St. Johns River from Jacksonville to Sanford, 175 miles of delight to [a] naturalist or common citizen. You likely know what such a trip is. If you have not done the St. Johns you surely must not live much longer in that deplorable state. Sanford the early seat of American Citrus culture and at present probably the home of the greatest practical orange grower in America is as lively as a western town reminding me much of Al­ liance as it was when I saw it in '89. I believe I told you how the Alliance people at that time brought great pine trunks from the ridge 60 miles away and set them in post holes along the streets to appear as shade trees & delude the tenderfoot. Sanford has natural pines & palms & magnolias—all she wants & gravelled (very fine) streets. All streets are gravelled here. Sand, sand, sand. From gulf to ocean it stretches. All of the country I have been in so far is sandy. Fertilizer must be used for everything. This however may be in some measure an advantage for one can feed their plants just as desired and may thus in-

President of Indiana University

121

telligently govern quality of fruit. This is now done in a measure and will I am convinced be the future great boon of the intelligent orange grower. You can readily see that I am already interested in the country both as to its natural history & agricultural resources. It is a wonderful country. Why is it thousands of eastern people go west to Montana & the territories to suffer & freeze when here are thousands of acres of government land that with the same expenditure of time & labor will yield with certainty an income never surpassed by our northwestern prairies. Here where winters are delightful & the finest of Sea coast summer resorts within a day's drive. The physical distribution of plants here is simply wonderful. You may have heard of the regions before. Swingle likely told you or Wilson perhaps may have described to you a Florida scrub or hammock or bay head, wonderful natural regions with plants so distinct and characteristic that an untrained ob­ server can draw a definite line between them. In 6 feet the whole character of the flora changes. On one hand Pinus falustris & underbrush of Quercus nigra (?) & a sod of several grasses. On the other hand Pinus clausa, Quercus sp[ecies] (a scrub oak) and an absence of sod, the ground being bare & cov­ ered with lichens & Selaginella rufestris. Think of a continuous pine forest on land of the same level & apparently all sandy alike having such distinct lines of demarcation. Think further of the fact that here we have also Casuarina. Think of Treub! Think of Casuarina and make up your mind speedily to give us a call this Christmas vacation. I'm sure Woods would be willing to relieve you of the work for a few weeks. You have a brother here also and thus an excuse to come. We expect Professor Kellerman & Wilson & Gallo­ way down during the holidays. Can't you form one of the party that we hope to show around our beautiful lakes. . . . Orange studying I find a delight. Hope I may continue to like it as well. The people are putting us up a 6 room laboratory, library, culture room, dark room & three laboratory rooms for as many workers. Myself & Mrs. Webber are very much pleased with the place & people. The latter are a surprise to me. As an average the Farmers of the north do not compare in intelligence with the orange growers, even the "cracker growers," that is, native Floridians. . . . Swingle and I are intending to take a trip down to Lake Worth start­ ing from here about the 3or4/ of December. . . . We have planned while in the Lake Worth region to walk down to Biscayne bay about 80 miles south by the Everglades.

The first year Webber was in Florida he came across Zamla integrifolia. Immediately he placed the plant under cultivation. Years before, when beginning his studies at Nebraska, he had mounted a specimen of this plant collected by Curtiss in Florida. While so do­ ing, Bessey had come in the room and, becoming much interested in examining the plant, remarked that it was one of those plants "that should have been dead a million years ago." This, as a consequence, had been the first plant of which Webber had learned the scientific name. After continuing studies on such orange diseases as "sooty

122

John Merle Coulter

mould" and many rusts and smuts—plant diseases of various na­ ture—and while initiating his remarkable southern plant hybridiza­ tion work, Webber turned to monograph work on Zamia. By time for publication, the Agricultural Department had placed him in Washington in charge of plats of its plant breeding work, and, being undecided whether to submit the monograph to the Gazette or pub­ lish it in the Department Bulletins, he wrote Bessey: The matter, as you know, is purely scientific in its nature, bearing on our work only in that it is a contribution to our knowledge of fecundation, which of course bears somewhat on the question of plant breeding. Of course no one would think of looking in our publications for matters on cytology or embry­ ology; but the Department would publish an edition at least twice as large as would the Gazette, and with the advantage of free distribution. . . .

This letter was dated September 19, 1898. The year before, at Toronto, Webber delivered a lecture, "Antherozoids of Zamla integrifolia," before the Botanical Society of America. There he showed by slides the path of pollen tubes in their growth to the ovary and development of the antherozoids in the pollen tubes followed by their discharge into the female apparatus (archegonium) and their penetra­ tion by swimming to the ovule. He showed as they enter the egg cell proper the nucleus slips out and goes on and unites with the nucleus of the egg cell and the abundant cytoplasm and cilia fuse and distrib­ ute through the egg cell. The showing of the swimming apparatus (spermatozoids or antherozoids) and their development astounded the botanists, so much so they disbelieved the youthful investigator. Some went so far as to believe that Webber's sanity had been affected by the warm climate of Florida. Dr. Ikeno of Japan had found the antherozoids indicating the development of cilia and assumed they must be motile but had not seen the motility. The first announcement of the swimming of the spermatozoids demonstrating they were mo­ tile was telegraphed to Coulter by Webber and published in the Gazette. About 1896 Webber had seen a small notice in Botanisches Centralblatt concerning the Japanese findings. This stirred him and, having material ready for sectioning, he went to Galloway saying: "If these are motile spermatozoids, I should find them in Zamia." He asked to go to Eustis to pursue the study, and that night left Washington. Even Bessey, however, was skeptical when Webber explained re-

President of Indiana University

123

suits of his researches before the Botanical Society until Edward C. Jeffrey induced Webber to put on a second demonstration the follow­ ing afternoon showing slides representing all important changes. So impressed were botanists then that the next night the British Associa­ tion requested the repeating of the lecture, and afterward published it. The effect stimulated extensive study of related plants. It pro­ foundly affected the understanding of evolutionary relationships and evolutionary interpretation of botanical morphology, and was soon regarded as one of the most outstanding works of botany in many years. Dr. L. H. Bailey was so impressed that, when made dean of agriculture and director of the experiment station at Cornell, he sought Webber's services. School researches often varied from that of the experiment stations. Plant breeding, foreign plant introduction, and plant disease study had economic and practical values at once discernible. Their values to horticulture and agriculture were apparent. Leadership had arisen in the early agricultural experiment stations, moreover, a leadership that pleaded for scientific experimental programs as well as programs that would more quickly promote economies for persons interested financially in plant and animal growth. Illustrative, one might cite the work of Eugene Woldemar Hilgard in California or Edward Lewis Sturtevant at the New York experiment station at Geneva. Then, too, Liberty Hyde Bailey in horticultural pursuits at the nearby Cornell University experiment station, and Webber also who later went to Cornell and still later California, and many botanical workers in state and "land-grant" colleges, as well as a brave and able constituency of the United States Department of Agriculture, forwarded movements in various phases of investiga­ tion considering, in addition to whether a foreign plant could be grown here, whether a plant could be ameliorated or improved, and like questions, factors of soil, climate, sunlight, fertilizers, and an im­ mense array of physiological, breeding, and selection phenomena— all observable influences in plant growth and reproduction. Physi­ ology's importance was recognized vitally after serious search for diagnoses and remedies for diseases was instituted. Indeed, the schools had much to do with teaching the stations the importance of physio­ logical researches, the study of the important general functions, the absorption of material and of energy from the outside world, the

124

John Merle Coulter

transfer of water through the plant body, transpiration (by means of which water is lost from the plant surface), photosynthesis, di­ gestion and assimilation, respiration, growth, and movement. Amer­ ican science owes Bessey a debt for writing into the "bill to establish National Experiment Stations" a provision requiring "original re­ searches on the physiology of plants and animals and the diseases to which they are severally subject with the remedies for the same." Taxonomy, being basic, received attention. Ecological studies were pursued. Garden vegetables, all cultivated plants, were increasingly studied, in instances with such thoroughness that histories and origins were explored as well as efforts toward their amelioration and im­ provement. Bailey led in emergence of a new scientific horticulture and agriculture. Accumulations of knowledge grew apace. No one work, however, was more important than plant disease study when, under leadership of Erwin F. Smith and others, their work enlarged to include not only life-histories and analyses of disease-producing organisms—fungi and bacteria, enzymes, and other causative factors, after Woods's and others' important discoveries of the late century— and began in more concentrated style to focus attention on the diseases looking toward methods of prevention, controls, and cures. Grass and forage studies continued in federal laboratories. But the federal government, as a great coordinator of work of the stations, began to serve as a directive agency to develop large plant industries. Matters of "pure science" in botany, the more theoretical, involv­ ing study of the plant record in geologic history—the immense study of evolutionary sequences—were left to the schools. Evolution had opened up the vast study of heredity. Coulter saw tremendous value to be realized from study of plant relations—phylogenetics— based on embryological, cytological, and ontogenetic researches. He saw need of a great department of botany in some great university dedicated more or less to these purposes. Such studies were increas­ ing. Morphology and its accompaniment, physiology, needed more research students who might serve the science usefully but not with utilitarian objectives uppermost. Both theoretical and practical in­ vestigators were needed. Perhaps President Harper and President Coulter discussed these matters at some time. It is said on good au­ thority that one of the reasons why Coulter was induced to leave Indiana University was a projected plan whereby post-graduate study

President of Indiana University

125

was to be established at the University of Chicago and undergrad­ uate study at Lake Forest College, all under the supervision and direction of Coulter, with services of Charles Reid Barnes obtained for the teaching of physiology. At any rate, whether because of this plan or because he wished to get to a smaller school where he might study botany more, Coulter accepted an offer of the presidency of Lake Forest College at Lake Forest, Illinois, near Chicago. He was to have an increase in salary, a home, a pleasant place for his family to be, freedom from state politics, and an opportunity to develop another Presbyterian school. Obviously, Coulter was to be nearer the church once again. In 1893, while yet at Bloomington, the Gazette published an edi­ torial pleading for the establishment of a great school of botany: . . . The field of botany has become so vast that one man cannot stand for it all, and of necessity does injustice to the science and to his pupils. . . . It is our opinion that more antiquated anatomy and physiology, to say nothing of taxonomy (which of course includes the facts of morphology), are being taught in this country by well known botanists than we would care to acknowl­ edge. Anatomists (still called histologists in some quarters) are apt to give little or no conception of modern physiology, and none whatever of our fluc­ tuating taxonomy. Taxonomists (both in specific and genetic lines) are likely to be fair anatomists, but simply retailers of an obsolete physiology. As for physiologists, we may be said, as yet, to have none. We have some fair "readers" of the subject, and others who are mechanically expert enough to devise pieces of apparatus, but as a distinct department in this country, physiology is yet to be established.

Considered historically, this editorial is rather an extreme state­ ment of conditions botanically in North America. Physiology was developing and in some respects was establishing an independent ex­ istence. But it was yet far behind human and animal physiology. It had not yet attained the stature of an experimental science although some experimentation was being pursued. Criticism of morphological advances, except as they related to anatomical studies, was conspicu­ ously absent from editorial comment. Coulter doubtless looked al­ ways to the developing trend. That stood out in his mind as a comet stands out in a galaxy of stars. The processes of change had been wrought indelibly in the mind of John Merle Coulter.

CHAPTER VII PRESIDENT OF LAKE FOREST COLLEGE

IT

NDER the presidency of Reverend William Roberts, Lake Forest College had commenced development of plans to constitute itself a university. Affiliations had been established to bring under its control Rush Medical School, one or more colleges of dental surgery, the Chicago College of Law, all located in Chicago; and Ferry Hall Seminary, Lake Forest Academy, and Lake Forest College, located at Lake Forest. The professional schools maintained their own boards of trustees but on each board the president of Lake Forest College sat as an ex officio member. President Coulter, as a consequence, came into immediate control of three units at Lake Forest—a girls' semi­ nary, an academy, and a college. Great responsibilities were entailed. Lake Forest's board of trustees had sought for some time to ob­ tain Coulter's services. It was thought that if only Coulter could be induced to come the institution's problems would be solved, and Lake Forest could go forward with plans to make it one of the great uni­ versities of the West, indeed of the nation. Coulter had salesmanship, prominence, polish as a lecturer, the scholarship of a scientist, proven administrative ability, and was a churchman of high standing. He could raise money. He could promote the large ambitions of the uni­ versity better than any one of their knowledge. The University of Chicago was then a comparatively small institution of Baptist affilia­ tions. Northwestern had not yet attained a ranking of large propor­ tions and was under Methodist domination. Lake Forest University was to be the great school to provide the growing, great city of Chi­ cago with educational facilities the equivalent of those had by New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The board of trustees secured Coul­ ter and then left him to his task. A large and almost impossible task it proved to be. Whether Coulter at the time of his election was aware of all these attaching responsibilities is a question. At the time of his inauguration in June 1893, he wrote Rose: I am just getting over the strain of inauguration ceremonies, & am almost too tired to move. I find in my forwarded mail a letter from you naming a specimen sent you by Fisher. You can send any material to me here. All the herbarium at Bloomington comes to me here, cases & all. Fisher is to spend 2

President of Lake Forest College

127

or 3 weeks packing it up for shipment, & in the fall I can open out in great shape.1

On November 11, 1893, Coulter wrote again: My herbarium has just begun to get into working shape again, and I find much more time for my botanical work than I expected. In looking over some bundles that Fisher had tucked away I came across a little package of Umbelliferae, which must have been the last you sent. Fisher had a great way of put­ ting things away so carefully that they were lost sight of. . . .

Within two weeks he was writing Bessey: In my herbarium, after consultation with Dr. Britton, work has been be­ gun on Amarantaceae. Dr. Trelease writes me that he has the genus Amarantus from you and asks for permission to forward the material in his hands to me. Work has been done on the material from Columbia College, and my own, so that now we are ready to do some very critical work upon other collections. This, of course, is but a part of the scheme of work which is to furnish suitable material for our proposed North American Botany. As soon as it is convenient, I would like very much to receive all your North American material of Amarantaceae.

Coulter, however, as his administration at Lake Forest progressed, found himself more and more encumbered with executive responsi­ bilities. Uline and Bray had followed him from Indiana to Lake Forest and to them he was able to turn over much of the work in Amarantaceae; their report, "A Preliminary Synopsis of the North American Species of Amaranthus," was published in the Gazette in 1894.2 The monograph on Cactaceae, conceived while yet at Wabash and furthered in seminar and classwork at Indiana, was still unfinished. Coulter found he did not have sufficent time to do the work himself. He accordingly took Uline and Fisher to St. Louis and showed what he wanted them to do with the Engelmann collection. "When they brought me the data," Coulter afterward related, "I took it for granted that they were critically made and did not know until too late that little more was done than to copy the Engelmann labels and notes. Perhaps this was the best way, but it did not get into the job what I intended to put into it." In any event, the Gazette announced in 1894: The first part of a preliminary revision of North American Cactaceae by Dr. John M. Coulter has been issued by the Department of Agriculture. The 1 During the summer of 1890 Coulter visited the Wisconsin Dells, a locality in which Sullivantia Sullivantii was again found. 2 XIX 268, 313. 1

128

John Merle Coulter

work has been in hand since 1890, and has been conducted with the help of various assistants, in the field, in the Engelmann collection of notes and types, and in the study of all accessible American collections. The nature of the ma­ terial and the frequent loss of types have made the study exceedingly difficult; while the numerous garden names and descriptions of the older writers have made an inextricable synonymy. The Mexican boundary is disregarded, and all species that have come under observation and are reasonably certain are included. The present part contains three genera: Cactus, replacing the generic name, Mamillaria, under which 64 species and varieties are defined, twelve of which are new; Anhalonium, with 4 species; and a new genus Lofhofhora, proposed for Echinocactus Williamsu, with a species and variety. Geographical distribution is discussed, so far as meager information will allow, and a handy artificial key is provided for the species of Cactus. The numerous notes left by Dr. Engelmann, including descriptions of unpublished species, have added greatly to the value of the revision.3

Coulter had never been able, as he had planned, to go to the land of Cactaceae. The monograph had been attended with numerous difficulties and interruptions. If there was any work with which Coul­ ter was dissatisfied it was this Preliminary Revision of the North American Species of Cactus, Anhalonium and Lofhophora.4 Not so with another publication, however. On December 14, 1893, he had written Rose, "If you have a 'number of good things laid away' I think I could find time now to look them over." These had to do with Cacti. And in 1894 there was published an abstract of Coulter's comments on "Some Evolution among Cacti."5 However, since the early part of the year Coulter had had "Seaton Umbellifers" and "Pringle's things," which together with other material, he thought would make "quite a good paper." Published as another Contribution from the United States National Herbarium appeared Coulter and Rose's "Report on Mexican Umbelliferae, mostly from the state of Oaxaca, recently collected by C. G. Pringle and E. W. Nelson."6 Other publications of Coulter's at this period worthy of mention were "New and Noteworthy North American plants,"7 published in the Gazette with Elmon M. Fisher, uSullivantia Hapemam,m a third species of Sullivantia from the Big Horn Mountains of Wyo­ ming, and "New Genus of Umbelliferae," published with Rose as 8XIX,

4 Contribution from the Nat. Herb. , III, 91-132. 300. 6III (1894),289-309. Proc. Indiana A cad. Sci.y 1 8 9 3 ^ . 2 6 2 . 7 X V I I I (August 1 8 9 3 ) , 299-303. 8 Botanical Gazette X V I I ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 4 2 1 . j 5

President of Lake Forest College

129

Myrrhidendron, the new genus and Myrrhidendron Donnellsmithii, the new species.9 Great developments were taking place, moreover, in the ever expanding field of North American botany. Since 1885, both in Eu­ rope and America, there had been established a considerable number of new journals dedicated to the interests of botany. More than fifteen different serial publications had sprung up, the last being Erythea, a Journal of Botany, West American and General. The Gazette, as a consequence, was meeting more severe competition. Coulter did not worry about this a great deal for the students, to whom he turned over much of the work of the Gazette, had ability. Barnes gave its interests his most careful attention. The Gazette was not Coulter's principal worry. His view was like that of Bessey who expressed him­ self on the subj ect a few years later: When we look over the earlier volumes with surprise at the little notes which fill the pages, we must not forget that American botany had not then generally risen above such contributions. It is true that we had a few masters in the science, with Dr. Gray still in his prime, but these masters wrote little for general reading, and their technically systematic contributions were mostly published in the proceedings of learned societies. The one thing which stands out today in sharp contrast with the botany of two decades ago is the very great increase in the number of masters in the science who are making liberal contributions from many different departments. The many-paged Gazette of today, with its rich variety of matter, differs no more from the four-page Bulletin of 1876 than does the botany of the two periods.

In 1896, two decades after the Gazette's establishment, Bessey re­ garded Coulter's publication as having "the foremost place among botanical j ournals."10 Nor did Coulter have to worry about his standing in botany. The botanical club of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, founded in 1883, had appointed a committee of ten which, meeting August 23, 1893, prepared ballots, elected fifteen additional members and thus created the charter membership of an American botanical society. When a committee of organization was named, Coulter was one of five charged with the duty of forming the new society of American botanists. Although committee action headed by L. H. Bailey and debate on the matter of restriction of membership preceded the action of August 1893, the following year, on August 9

Ibid., X I X ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 4 6 6 .

10

American Naturalist, X X X ( 1 8 9 6 ) , 1042.

130

John Merle Coulter

15, 1894, the Botanical Society of America, limited to botanists quali­ fied in research and authors of recognized meritorious works, was founded with Dr. Trelease as its first president. Coulter would be­ come the president in 1897. Not only was Coulter recognized in botany for his Gazette and his published works but officially he was accorded as much recognition as his limited spare time allowed. Coulter had received recognition in the larger educational cir­ cles. He had served as a member of President Eliot's committee of ten, named by the National Council of Education to consider uni­ formity in school programs and entrance requirements for college admission. Coulter served on the "Natural History" section of a con­ ference committee which included two other botanists, Bessey and Douglas H. Campbell. Coulter's address, delivered while president of Indiana University, "Biology in Secondary Schools," had enun­ ciated his views on these subjects quite forcibly. Neither his position in science nor education worried Coulter. But there were other concerns having to do with the college and with botany which troubled him. An incipient national financial panic required Coulter and the trus­ tees of Lake Forest University to defer their plans for university expansion. On July 9, 1894, he wrote Rose: I shall be glad to look over the Umbellifer material at any time. I am now doing a little herbarium work in my leisure intervals & shall be here almost all summer. I have had a trying year in a good many ways, & the continued business depression makes it still doubtful just when we can make our forward move. . . .

So devastating did this "depression" become that all plans for im­ mediate expansion were abandoned. Some improvements were made during his administration. In 1893 Smith Hall was connected with Ferry Hall, the girls' preparatory department or seminary; and in December 18 94, a large cottage was added to the academy, the boys' preparatory department. Coulter and Mrs. Coulter, moving into the wealthy north coast communities along Lake Michigan, had hoped and counted on support from the rich citizenry. Efforts were made to enlist interest in the college's work. For example, Bray conducted a class for Mrs. Cyrus McCormick and others in botany and when Bray went to Germany to study, Coulter agreed to take the lectures. There was, however, no great response. Lake Forest University was

President of Lake Forest College

131

not a really integral part of the Lake Forest community. Dr. and Mrs. Coulter went through years of disappointment at Lake Forest as more and more it became apparent that the dream of university expansion was not to be realized. Another son, Merle, was born to them. John G. Coulter was now a young man and helping his father in botany. Coulter, with continued work on the Gazette, re-created the visions in botany which had always sustained him. Plans had been developed for systematizing the whole of North American botany anew. Coulter once again loosed his energies in this direction. For in 1894 an important adjunct was added to his work. In 1894 he became a professorial lecturer in botany at the University of Chicago. President Harper had begun his administration at Chicago in 1891. The following year instruction had begun, including biology with Dr. Charles O. Whitman in charge. Botany, however, was not, Coul­ ter's Gazette editorial had pointed out, among courses to be expected from such a department and so, although in his second convocation statement of April 1893, Harper had announced that the depart­ ment had been reorganized into five distinct departments, zoology, botany, anatomy, neurology, and physiology, still no botany had been offered as late as the school year 1893-1894.11 Charles J. Chamberlain, a graduate of Oberlin College and stu­ dent of A. A. Wright, had come to Chicago in the fall of 1893 and taken preliminary work in zoology. Chamberlain's preparation had been sound. Wright, his teacher, had spent some time at Woods Hole, the great marine biological station, and learned experimental labora­ tory techniques from such teachers as Ε. B. Wilson or Whitman, possibly both. Wright also had been a friend of Bessey after Bessey had studied with Sachs. Bessey's Botany, based on Sachs's Lehrbuch, had been used at Oberlin. It will be noticed, nevertheless, that what knowledge of experimental technique Chamberlain had at this time was not in botany. Chamberlain wanted to study botany further and so he consulted Harper who promised that the following year bota­ ny would be offered at Chicago. The school year 1894-1895 drew near and no provision was made for botany. Chamberlain went to Harper and demanded an explanation. Not satisfied with what was told him, he threatened to go to a Chicago newspaper and expose the 11 Department

of Botany News Letter, March (1942), p. 1.

132

John Merle Coulter

violation of the promise made to him. Harper offered him a fellow­ ship if he would stay and added, "Give me a week." Two days later he summoned Chamberlain to his office and asked, "Would it be satisfactory to you if I have President Coulter come down on Satur­ days?" and lecture on botany. Chamberlain knew of Coulter, had read Martin's and Mottier's embryological studies published by Coul­ ter while at Indiana, and replied, "yes." A group gathered the fol­ lowing Saturday and Coulter's appointment was made known on September 4. Coulter was to lecture and instruct thirty times on Saturday mornings. What lectures! Chamberlain was immediately swept off his feet. The following Saturday about 40 students were gathered. Coulter was immediately attracted to Chamberlain. He took the young student on a field trip and showed him how to gather specimens to begin some advanced research studies. The field trip practice became established and Coulter many times on Saturdays ac­ companied his hearers on trips to the sand dunes and other areas of special interest near Chicago. Henry M. Clarke was that year Coul­ ter's assistant in charge, for the most part, of the field work and what additional class instruction was given. When Coulter had a group, they usually confined themselves to studies in systematic botany. Many times Bray, John G. Coulter, and other students at Lake For­ est would accompany Coulter on the trips Saturdays. Uline was then primarily interested in systematic botany. As was Fisher. Robert Ai­ mer Harper taught botany and geology at Lake Forest while Coulter was there. However, he left to go abroad to study with Brefeld and Strasburger and Bray took his place. It is believed that Hamilton Greenwood Timberlake also came under Coulter's influence at this time. While Coulter continued morphological researches, such studies at Lake Forest were by and large in aid of taxonomy. With Gray and Watson gone and Robinson not yet risen as their potential suc­ cessor, Nathaniel Lord Britton was working toward setting himself up as archon of taxonomy. Britton reacted quite strenuously against the adulations heaped on Gray. He could not understand the Gray Herbarium's extreme veneration of Gray's work and policies. There was every reason why Britton should become lord of taxonomy. His desire for a uniform taxonomy in sciences met favor. The Bul-

President of Lake Forest College

133

letin of the Torrey Botanical Club was becoming the leading agency for publication of original systematic work. In this respect the Gazette was by no means its superior. The great New York Botanical Garden, of which Britton was director, was inaugurating an era of botanical exploration unequaled for many years. With time this would develop into by far the most important exploration work be­ ing conducted by any American institution. Had Coulter and Britton agreed on principles in taxonomy their relations might have been closer. Certainly Coulter was among those who respected Britton as an administrator and systematist. Coulter never criticized Britton though he was almost unmerciful toward Greene, accusing Greene of stealing species by artful devices, and finding him finally more amusing than troublesome. On January 9, 1893, he had written Rose: I am very glad to know that you are to have Pringle's Umbellifers. His plants as a rule are about one third new. Brother Greene would not be happy without hitting at some one. If he does not hit any harder than he has done in his new Journal it will not amount to much.

Greene was an able student of botanical history. His Landmarks constitute one of the most authoritative works on botany of the an­ cients and in his efforts to revive ancient genera he was sincere. So was Britton in his thesis for priority rules in respect of specific names. Watson, however, during his last illness had masterfully answered him: . . . botany is the science of plants and not the science of names. Nomen­ clature is only one of those tools which is necessary to botany, and this being the case, points of nomenclature should be subordinate to science. A principle of botanical convenience has been established. . . . I prefer the word expediency as a better term than convenience to designate the principle, that the demands of science override any merely technical claims of priority, etc. . . .

Britton had answered that the plea of expediency led to individual interpretation, as witnessed by numerous exceptions in Gray's works to the maintenance "of the oldest binomial." Had Britton gone no further, he might have had a wide hearing. But he chose to seize on the Gazette's editorial concerning the end of "a botanical aristocracy," and intimated strongly that Coulter joined in rejoicing over the ter­ mination of Gray's leadership. The Gazette merely suffixed a note to Britton's article. "Dr. Britton is of course at liberty to make his own use of this editorial. The editors, however, beg leave to dissent

134

John Merle Coulter

both from his imputation of it to any one of their number, and from his special application of it in the case under consideration."12 In 1888 Arthur had gone to Europe and visited several centers of botanical activity in Great Britain, Holland, Germany, Switzer­ land, and Austria. He had gone again in 1892 and returned with a world-wide conception of botany. The entire botanical world was be­ coming aware of the need for uniformity in systematization. In 1890 Arthur had circulated a letter among American botanists advocating a plan for an international congress of botanists to be held at the forthcoming Chicago World's Fair. In August of 1892 the botanical club of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, meeting at Rochester, New York, adopted a motion made by Britton to appoint a committee to establish a stable system of nomenclature in North America. Coulter and Britton were both placed on the com­ mittee. At this meeting Arthur's proposal for an international con­ gress was rejected. But Lucien M. Underwood was delegated to attend the great congress to be held at Genoa, Italy, in September. And the Rochester meeting proceeded to promulgate the so-called Rochester Code. Twenty-five botanists met informally and discussed questions. Concessions were made and principles adopted. The dub approved the principles with unexpected unanimity and the Gazette exultantly editorialized: The Rochester meeting bids fair to mark an epoch for American botanists. Not only was an agreement concerning nomenclature reached, but botany was dignified by being made a distinct section of the American Association. It will be long before Section G sounds as home-like as section F, but as the botanists were suing for the divorce it was graceful to leave the house in the possession of zoology. However, the divorce is not complete for provision was made by which joint sessions are to be held for hearing papers of general biological in­ terest. The Gazette has so frequently given the reasons [which] were over­ whelmingly evident at Rochester where the flood of botanical papers was beyond all precedent. . . .13

Nevertheless, this was not all. On February 15, 1893, the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club commented: Since the meeting of the botanists at Rochester, last August, it has become evident that an International Botanical Congress should be held in 1893 in this country. Upon the return of Prof. Underwood from Genoa with his 12

Botanical Gazette, XVII (1892), 169, 252, and also 164.

1 3 XVII

(1892), 297.

President of Lake Forest College

135

report of what was done there, as well as what was left undone, such a Con­ gress seemed a necessity. . . .14

Coulter was placed on a committee to arrange for it. He wrote Bessey: I wish you had been at Rochester and heard the Bot[anical] Congress dis­ cussed. I think that botanists were a unit in not wanting to be swung about at the will of a Chicago lawyer with an offensive "swell-head." Barnes and I have talked over the Congress business & I expect some of his suggestions w[oul]d be the same as mine. I think that one important thing is to enlist the active cooperation of every botanist who has European correspondents. Let every such man badger his foreign friends about coming, & I think there will be a phenomenal foreign attendance. No serious attention need be paid to American attendance, as more of our botanists will be in Madison than have even been together before. Then, let us have a more definite program than usual. Instead of letting the little fellows read the papers and big ones do nothing but pat their backs, get up certain themes, which will embrace most of the live questions, and appoint some natives & foreigners to speak on them. Let every dep[artmen]t of botany be represented in these themes. Nomenclature is already on deck with a re­ port that will be theme enough for systematists. Important questions and im­ portant botanists will attract a large attendance. Anything that I or the Ga­ zette can do to help will be gladly done.

Madison had been selected for its proximity to Chicago. And in August 1893, the congress was held. Bessey read a paper arguing against the use of personal names in designating species. Coulter and Britton took the opposite position, arguing the maintenance of sta­ bility required continuance of the practice. The work of nomenclature was considered, Greene and Trelease being added to the standing committee. Greene was elected president. But because of the small number of foreign botanists it was decided to call the assemblage the "Madison Botanical Congress." So far as nomenclature was con­ cerned, nothing of importance was decided. All the work, from a world point of view, had been to little avail. However, one thing seemed settled. The Rochester Code was going to stand, despite at­ tacks by Greene and others. On October 30, Coulter wrote Rose: I am sorry that you were not at Madison, as some very important schemes were on hands there, which you have probably already heard of. It looks as though the systematic botany of the country was in a fair way to be pushed ahead rapidly and I hope you will be ready to give the scheme of a complete flora, all your aid. 14

XX, 69.

136

John Merle Coulter

The "complete flora" to which Coulter alluded was a projected systematic botany of North America, the plan of which had been formulated in large part by Britton. Following Rabenhorst's Kryptogamen Flora and Engler and Prantl's Natilrliche PjlanzenjamiUeny the plan called for the bringing together of as many foremost bota­ nists of America as could be obtained to present "a compact and com­ plete presentation of the North American flora, so far as it is known." Coulter came out immediately endorsing the work by an editorial in the Gazette. Type specimens, type localities, geographical distribu­ tion, and economic, paleontologic, and horticultural features of each order were to be included. The ordinal sequence was to be that of Die Naturliche Pjlanzenjamilien which since his years at Wabash Coulter had been studying. The Gazette regarded this as marking "an epoch in the history of systematic botany in North America." It was announced that each monographer would be responsible for his own material and that a consistent style of presentation would be made. Also, that a consistent nomenclature would be adopted. But what nomenclature? That of the Rochester Code? Rand and Redfield produced a study, A Preliminary Catalogue of the Plants Growing on Mt. Desert and the Adjacent Islands, us­ ing the nomenclature of Gray's Manual. Bessey commented sensibly, "Had the authors contented themselves with stating that they adopted the nomenclature of Gray's Manual because most of those who would have occasion to use their book would be likely to use it in connection with the Manual, nothing could be said. Such a course has much to be said in its favor. But they have thought best to strengthen their conclusion by an attack upon the Rochester Rules."15 Britton wrote Bessey: . . . Have you seen Rand and Redfield "Flora of Mt Desert" and read remarkable preface? I have been trying to get some fellow to review that the Bulletin but no one seems to want to bother with them, and there reasons why I won't do it. Barnes has given them a gentle set back in Gazette. I wish you would admonish them to improve their manners. . . .

the for are the

Similarly, Edward Lee Greene published his Manual of the Bota­ ny oj the Region of San Francisco Bay, using his nomenclatural theo­ ries. The Gazette took a stand similar to one already enunciated: 15

American Naturalist, XXVIII ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 1036.

President of Lake Forest College

137

. . . We are very glad that the author has said that "no botanist will be obliged to adopt the nomenclature of the Manual of the Bay-Region Botany," and we sincerely hope that they will follow this wise caution. Of course, he means to say that if we do not like it we can say so, a privilege of which we are glad to avail ourselves, and we therefore enter our protest against this use of pre-Linnean names. We ourselves have participated in revolutions of nomen­ clature in the interest of peace, and not that one revolution may simply be the prelude to another. . . . Highly as we esteem Professor Greene we cannot just now follow him any further in this ghoulish business, and we trust that he will understand that we have deserted him, not for his own sake, but on account of the company he keeps.16

Nevertheless, despite all such leaders as Bessey, Britton, Barnes and Coulter could do, protests against the Rochester Code accumu­ lated and within a year about seventy-four American botanists had joined the movement. Bessey called on them to make the grounds of objection plain. It was agreed by most botanists that there was noth­ ing final about the code, but it had been framed to promote harmony, stability, and consistency as far as possible and botanists should stand by it. As to Coulter's position, there was no doubt. Rigidity was not nec­ essary. In the interest of progress a certain flexibility had to be main­ tained and safeguarded. On August 30, 1894, he wrote Bessey: I thank you very much for your kind words concerning the Texan Manual in the last Naturalist. I want to revise the Rocky Mt. Manual very much, but things are moving so rapidly in matters of classification & nomenclature that to write a book is like taking a snap shot.

On November 27, Coulter again wrote Bessey: . . . I will be quite interested to know what you think of the nomenclature subject as presented by Rand and Redfield. I notice that this is on the pro­ gramme (of the Botanical Seminar). I met Mr. Rand in Cambridge a week or two ago and he seemed to feel unjustly treated by the notice I gave him in the Gazette in reference to the nomenclature business. I would like to know whether you felt that my strictures were unjust. He is a pleasant fellow so­ cially and professes to be open to conviction but he is only open to the con­ viction that he has the right side of the question.

Coulter's position was that the American Code—rules adopted by the Rochester and Madison meetings—should be complied with, though still in the making. That since the nomenclature committee had been continued matters showing hasty and unstudied applica­ bility should be reported, and modified if necessary. " X I X (1894), 162.

138

John Merle Coulter

A controversy flared up between Frederick V. Coville, successor of Dr. Vasey at the United States Department of Agriculture, and Benjamin Lincoln Robinson of the Gray Herbarium. Coville accused Robinson with alarming severity of conducting a confidential cor­ respondence against reform. For example, when a valid species was found to bear the name of an older defunct one relegated to synon­ ymy, what was to be done? Coville said, change the name of the valid species at once. Robinson said, do not change unless a sound, practical reason was to be subserved thereby. Coulter seemed to side with the latter point of view but, the controversy not being settled by any accord among American botanists, Coulter pursued a policy of consulting authorities at both the Gray Herbarium and the New York Botanical Garden. The situation that developed was well il­ lustrated in a letter written by Coulter to Rose on March 24, 1900: I am very sorry that there is any doubt concerning the standing of the name Cogswellia. I think that botanists would regard Lomatium as a homonym of Lomatia. You have gotten the opinion of zoologists, but the unfortunate fact remains that some day botanists may come to look at the thing in the same way, and then all of that long list of names will have to be recast by some one. It is a very unfortunate situation, for we are going to catch it either way. If we use Cogswellia the species may some day be changed to Lomatia. If we use Lomatia some botanists will be almost sure to change all the names to Cogswellia. If you go to New York and Boston, I wish you would discuss this very subject frankly and fully with both Britton and Robinson. If they agree that it should be Cogswellia, our course will be clear; if they differ, we are no worse off than before.

Presumably Coville had already been consulted by Rose. These were the matters in botany which worried Coulter. For al­ most a decade he had foreseen a state of vexing confusion developing in taxonomy. He did not despair. Coulter was made of stronger stuff. The future of systematic botany was too close to his heart. The nomenclatural disputes, however, must have seemed somewhat trivial to him. His thoughts were on the larger subjects. He foresaw how morphology was going to enlarge generic boundaries. On January 12, 1897, he told Rose: Our two letters must have crossed in the mails. You will notice that in mine I said that I would try to arrange to spend a week in Washington]. I think I will need it for recuperative as well as botanical purposes. I wish to lay our plans for Umbellifer work both in "Synoptical Flora" and in the "Flora of North America." I suppose that you recognise the two works by the titles

President of Lake Forest College

139

I have used. It has all along been my desire not to do any large amount of work in the group until after the appearance of Drude's Monograph. . . . We are now studying here the special morphology of the Umbellifers, and find that we are dealing with an exceedingly important question. There are sug­ gestions through and through the special morphology" that will be of service to us in any general presentation of the group. I long ago despaired of getting at the real facts of the group by merely examining the superficial structures. Our studies of the development of the embryo-sac, and of its contents, and of the embryo, have brought to me, I think, several rays of light on the sub­ ject of classification.

Coulter, from the time of his work on the sixth edition of Gray's Manual, had seen the necessity for more "critical work." In that, he had wanted to do more but his and Watson's agreement had been only to bring the manual up to the point of published knowledge. Watson had gone ahead and solved dubious questions. Coulter told Walter Deane, ". . . it was meant to be strictly a compilation, & in that spirit I sent in my Mss. . . . But the thing is done now, we have all lived through it, & we can swear off from future hasty compila­ tions." This was Coulter's intention. But circumstances had not per­ mitted him to abide by it. On May 25, 1894, Coulter told Bessey, "I am more and more convinced that no one man ought to write a manual in the time that is ordinarily given for the work." Manuals became to him piles of work, "done in a perfectly perfunctory way" with attention focused only on the region the investigator happened specially to study. Like Robinson, he saw the need for more mono­ graph work and, individually, he saw the need for work along wider lines. For more than a year the botanical seminar of the University of Nebraska sought Coulter for its speaker. At a quarter-centennial celebration in 1894 it was arranged that Coulter should address the group. However, an engagement in Indianapolis prevented and although several subsequent dates were fixed Coulter did not get to Lincoln until May 27, 1895. At that time he delivered his famous address on "The Botanical Outlook." Coulter told the group that his recent researches had been "peculiarly technical, and hence unin­ telligible," and so he would talk on tendencies in botany he regarded as objectionable and those he regarded as praiseworthy. He deplored a tendency toward narrowness—"botanical moles who can see only their own burrows." He recommended as a solution for a tendency

140

John Merle Coulter

toward certainty a study of botanical history—the "self-gratulation of one age has always been the wonder of the next. Theories group themselves about the facts in hand; and as facts multiply, theories are fractured." The motto of botanists should be, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Coulter argued that acquisitive stu­ dents were far more numerous than those who acquired and did something with their acquisition. "This is an age of theses," he said, "of germinating plantlets, not one in a thousand of which develop any further." Unfortunately the corpses remain in literature and the mummy is always with us. "I know," he added, "that in Sys­ tematic Botany it is our constant wish that of those who have written before us, at least one-half had never seen a plant." But this was not all. Coulter deplored a tendency toward immature research. "The American boy wishes to become a man at once." In the atmosphere of dawning strength, he wants to recast the whole plant kingdom. In nomenclature Coulter avowed he was no "botanical ecclesiastic." But he continued, "We have an old ritual and a new ritual struggling for supremacy, and in the meantime the plants are in danger of be­ ing lost sight of.... It is not the names of plants that will confuse us, even if we never agree upon a uniform label, but the varying opin­ ions as to their relationships and generic and specific limitations, con­ cerning which there can be no consensus of opinion until all minds are cast in the same mold." Coulter regarded the period as still one of comparative morphol­ ogy. The mature structure as an object of study was first, then there Was a shift from species to cell and from cell to history. Genetic relationships were still objectives of investigation which characterized the time. But new forces were gathering and physiology was coming to the foreground—a true physiology which dealt with cause and purpose and results. What had made the organism what it has be­ come and what are the adaptations necessary to its survival, these were the new questions to be solved in the laboratory of the experi­ menter and also in the laboratory of nature. For once again the field had become important in studying plants in their environment. "Plants," spoke Coulter, "have no longer intrinsic worth as speci­ mens, but are valuable only as related to their environment. Environ­ ment means not simply soil and altitude and season, but also distribu­ tion, conditions of variation, light and heat and moisture relations,

President of Lake Forest College

141

methods of development, in short, all those multitudinous questions which physiology has suggested." There was Coulter, in 1895, be­ fore Conway MacMillan's noted Lake of the Woods study was pub­ lished, in the precincts of Bessey—the teacher of MacMillan, Pound, Clements, Woods, and other early progenitors of ecological study— describing the branch of botany, the new science of ecology. There was Coulter elaborating a new analytical study which would give rise to field observations anew, to new topographical and biological surveys. "To be truly scientific," however, said Coulter, "is to become syn­ thetic, and that which is too often regarded as science is but the brick and mortar and scaffolding," a metaphorical symbolism which the lecturer had used before. One wonders at this point if he was not trying to hurry synthesizing in the interest of systematic botany. If so, as with most hurrying, it led him into error. As long as species were regarded as permanent, they had a definite autonomy and spe­ cial privilege in the books. Although the study of plant relationships diminished the importance of generic and specific lines, reducing them to regimens of somewhat arbitrary judgment, hybridization— determining those species constant and those variable—very much affected systematics. What new plant was found sufficiently constant to be regarded permanent and thus worthy of systematization? The solution, Coulter believed, lay in culture experiments. By this meth­ od he had recently developed "two herbarium species and one variety from the same stock." Yet he believed there was still too much "amusement" in herbarium work. "Why juggle endlessly with species and varieties," asked Coulter, "when simple cultural experiments will determine the fact of the constancy or variability of forms in ques­ tion?" He approved the tendency "to specific demonstration" and favored more frequent use of cultures. But the large point was the last one. ". . . in the very nature of things," he said, "it seems impossible to demonstrate" evolution. Botanists were more and more coming to the opinion that there was truth in all the evolutionary theories—Lamarck's, Darwin's, and others of lesser importance. But as for froving evolution, though experimentalists had been trying since Darwin wrote, that seemed, impossible. Here again, in final analysis, was something too large for proof in the human or legal sense, something more or less to be accepted on scientific faith. Nevertheless, there was a botanist in

142

John Merle Coulter

Holland who sought to perceive evolution in still another particu­ lar—mutations—different from the Darwinian concept of natural selection. His faith was leading him in more or less a confident belief that greater insight into evolution could be acquired. Not many years hence Hugo de Vries was to announce to the world that with experi­ ments on Oenothera Lamarckiana a new phase in evolutionary de­ velopment had been found—not as Darwin described evolution, by a process of natural selection only—but by evidence of mutations which originated new plants of sufficient constancy and permanence to be regarded at that time not plant varieties, but new species. De Vries's work was in large part based on Darwin's, in fact, he was the first to say that his studies had been initiated to elaborate Darwin's professed observations and that his conclusions had in large part been derived from the work of Darwin. De Vries, in reality, did more, not merely adding to the sum total of a knowledge announced and enlarged by Darwin and convinc­ ing science of a species origin as the name implies, suddenly, by muta­ tion. Some authorities during the first decades of the century argued Oenothera Lamarckiana to be a hybrid. Their views required years of intensive cytological research following De Vries's pronounce­ ment, before adequate conclusions could be reached. Even as Gray did not accept wholeheartedly Darwin's theory of modification of species. Coulter did not at first go full length with De Vries. Coulter, however, visualized the far-reaching effects of De Vries's accomplish­ ment and realized that laboratory and field experimental investiga­ tion would be greatly stimulated. In a fashion, similar to Gray's realizations when the courageous American botanist assumed the task of making Darwin's theory known. De Vries, led by a bibliographical reference compiled by Liberty Hyde Bailey, discovered the long unnoticed paper, "Plant Hybrids," published in 1865 by Gregor Mendel in the Proceedings of the Nat­ ural History Society of Briinn, today one of the "great biological classics" of all time. Wishing to learn whether the products of his experiments behaved like hybrids which Mendel described—that is, split in accordance with the ratio enunciated by Mendel's law— De Vries came to realize that his products bred true as entire new species of plants and that Mendel had given to the world one of the great studies in heredity of all time. Accordingly, in 1900 when he

President of Lake Forest College

143

announced his mutation theory, De Vries, as did two others (Correns and Tschermak), again made known Mendel's work. Bateson's ab­ stract of that year, and publication of a translation by the Royal Horticultural Society of England made knowledge of the classic widespread in America by 1902, especially in discussions at the grad­ uate school of agriculture at Columbus, Ohio, and the International Plant Breeding Conference of that year. The investigation, and methodology, initiated were not merely epoch-making j within a decade little short of a scientific revolution was accomplished in certain phases of plant research. Plant breeding, essentially a practical art raised now to the dignity of an experimental science, was to join to itself the very important theoretical study of plant genetics. Cytological researches, reexamining and studying chromosomes and cells, dominant and recessive characters, laws of inbreeding, principles of selection, and much else, were to ensue in school and experiment station laboratories, both indoors and in the field and garden. Articles such as William Austin Cannon's "A Cytological Basis for the Mendelian Laws," published in December of 1902 in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club would appear, and Liberty Hyde Bailey, possibly the one first to use and be as much as any responsible for prevalent use of the term "plant breeding," would say before the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology that same month, "It would seem that the Mendelian hypothesis would give a new direction to cytological research. . . . We can no longer be satisfied with mere 'trials' in hybridizing: we must plan the work with great care, have definite ideals, 'work to a line,' and make accurate and statistical studies of the separate marks or characters of plants. His work suggests what we are to look for. . . ." Although Mendel probably did not realize it, the great advantage of his hypoth­ esis of heredity, as Bailey pointed out, was that its basis allowed of a morphological unit susceptible of direct study, "an appreciable unit, not a mere imaginary concept." Bailey had always been impressed with the "unwisdom of en­ deavoring to account for the evolution of all the forms of life upon any simple hypothesis": all new conclusions, he had said, "illustrate with great emphasis the complexity of even the fundamental forces in the progression of organic nature." He was quick to seize on the distinction between "the hereditary idea" and "the hybridization

144

John Merle Coulter

idea," the numerical results of hybridization, embodied in Mendel's revelations. Weismann had brought the cell theory and the evolu­ tion theory together, and done much toward formulating a lasting chromosome theory. Mendel had not given a complete hypothesis of heredity but Bailey believed, "This hypothesis will focus our at­ tention along new lines, and I believe," he said, "will arouse as much discussion as Weismann's hypothesis did; and it is probable that it will have a wider influence. Whether it expresses the actual means of heredity or not it is yet too early to say. . . ." Within one-half year—in June 1903—Bailey enunciated prin­ ciples of a "new plant breeding." With seeming suddenness breed­ ers began to realize they must give up the production "of mere 'varieties'; we must breed," wrote Bailey, "for certain definite at­ tributes that will make the new generation of plants more efficient for certain purposes: this is the new outlook in plant breeding." He went before the American Association of Nurserymen and in a speech on "The Whole Question of Varieties" said: It is of no consequence either to produce or to introduce a "new variety," but it is of immense consequence to produce a line of plants having superior ef­ ficiency for some specific purpose. Plant-breeding is worthy of the name only as it sets definite ideals and then works toward them with predictable assur­ ance. . . . We are to breed not so much merely new and striking characters, that will enable us to name, describe, and sell a "novelty" as to improve the performance along accustomed lines.

So important was this that the science of agriculture was included in its scope. "The new agriculture" was "not to come primarily from invention, good roads, rural telephones, legislation, discussion of economics. All these are merely aids. Increased crop and animal pro­ duction are to come from two agencies: improvement in the care that they receive; improvement in the plants and animals themselves. In other words," Bailey wrote, "the new agriculture is to be built upon the combined results of better care and better breeding. So far as the new breeding is concerned, it is characterized by perfect definiteness of purpose and effort, the stripping away of all arbitrary and fictitious standards, the absence of speculative theory, and the insistence upon the great fact that every plant and animal has in­ dividuality." This does not imply that Mendelism or even the valuable work of De Vries were solely responsible for all changes that took place.

President of Lake Forest College

145

Much original, creative, and enduring work was emanating from American agricultural experiment stations. The fundamental work in commercial grains—in corn-breeding for physical and chemical perfection, begun as early as 1896 under direction of Professor C. G. Hopkins at the Illinois station where also was located Edward Murray East; in wheat and flax breeding and other important sta­ tistical work in Minnesota, conducted under Willet M. Hays—the work under Webber in the plant-breeding laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture, probably the largest enterprise of its character in the world, extending to cotton, citrus fruits, apples, pineapples, oats, tobaccos, and other crops, were illustrations referred to by Bailey in his address read April 2, 1903, before the American Philosophical Society entitled "The Forward Movement in PlantBreeding." During this year the American Genetic Association was formed. The growing and breeding of plants to meet seasonal and regional requirements was important to every area in America where plants were cultivated. The development of the gene concept made work of great precision possible. Increased knowledge of the Mendelian theory of behavior took hold. And more need for study of wild plants and their genetic relationships became indicated. Not much more time would pass before a young student, George Harrison Shull, would consult Webber who would point out that most breed­ ing work had been in cultivated plants, and more study of unit char­ acters and their relations among plants of the wild should be had. A few years earlier, a young graduate and teacher of the University of Nebraska, Rollins Adams Emerson, had begun breeding beans, studying his plants from the practical standpoint, but more interested in working out their scheme of heredity. These three students, East, Shull, and Emerson, were but three illustrations of young men who concluded to carry forward the work established. And they in a sense became American founders of the comparatively modern school of plant genetics. Each was a university product. Each spent some time at an experiment station. Coulter had always approved of work in college laboratories which "raised questions that compel us to visit the laboratory of nature. The ultimate problems," he maintained, "are waiting our solution there." The day of regarding species "as definitely bounded as that of an oceanic island" had passed. Regarding species historically, "they

146

John Merle Coulter

seem," he argued, "but as waves that rise from a general level and sink to it again. We have been studying, describing, cataloguing waves that are inextricably related, and are only beginning to catch glimpses of the deep-seated currents that run steadily beneath the surface. The general laws governing waves, however, are interesting and valuable, but to exactly and individually delimit them seems hopeless. But the most hopeless task of all is to make and unmake species, elevate and depress and transfer varieties, by looking at the forms of isolated specimens. . . . If one thinks a form is a good species rather than a variety, or the variety of one species rather than another, why not demonstrate the opinion rather than publish it?" He pointed to an instance where two species had been pronounced by a field observer as the same, the difference being due to difference in soil and exposure. "I persistently reversed the conditions," he related, "but the forms continued to come true from seed, and it was evident that the dif­ ferences were deeper than such as are induced by differences of ex­ posure. Enough such problems are awaiting us to satisfy the ambition of all the young botanists we can produce." New data were ever to be sought. Coulter never believed in "clipping wings that would seek a higher flight." It was only against immature flights that he interposed objections. Like Bailey, he too was aware of the deeply involved complexities in the evolutionary courses. Although the bent of his mind went more to phylogeny and morphological implications, he had said before Mendelism and De Vries arrived on the American scene, "The genealogical pathway of every existing organism seems to have been a very complex one, directed in a general way towards the region of adaptation, baffled at every turn by its own rigidity, car­ ried out of its course by hereditary momentum, achieving a structure of relative safety by calling in every influence that could effect struc­ tural change. No single factor of evolution has yet been proposed which seems adequate to explain the observed results, and the best we can do is to add them all together and wish for more." And with the turn of the century much more arrived. The world of science was still a world of wonder, still a vast un­ disclosed domain for further exploration. The records of the present and those of past geologic time were still revealing a wealth of forms, subjects for further study, subjects of new discoveries. The "wonder­ ful history" of plants—from the gametophyte to the birth and su-

President of Lake Forest College

147

premacy of the sporophyte over the gametophyte—was not the sum total of knowledge of any leading American botanist. But it was al­ ways a region of large interest. American botany and horticulture were producing able interpreters of growing laboratory investiga­ tions. True, they still turned to Europe for the new and elaborations of the old. The tendency, however, was more and more to look to re­ sults of American investigations. Interpreters such as Coulter, Bessey, and Bailey could take the productions of the laboratory technician, the great findings from both the field and the indoor laboratory, and interpret them as editor, teacher, and lecturer in simple terms and with inspiration. The implications for religion were profound. Evolution sought to explain laws of development. But evolution seemingly could not ac­ count for beginnings. " cIn the beginning, God,' " said Bailey. Some claimed the scientist sought to alter the courses of God's creation. Scientists such as Bailey, Bessey, and Coulter arose to show that sci­ ence sought to learn of God's creation, with its wealth of existing and constantly multiplying forms. Religion became to Coulter more a matter of the heart—the center of a man's being, his character— whether he stood for righteousness and the church. Religion was not for intellect solely—not for proof in laboratory or court. Religion was a power in human experience making for efficiency and man's best self-realization. To say that science was hostile to religion, one might as easily maintain that science was hostile to morality or patriotism or any other noble human expression. These mature beliefs were in instances expressed at a later time. But they were shaping themselves now. The soul of John Finley Crowe was still in Coulter, and proudly. Asa Gray and George Lincoln Goodale were his models as teachers.

CHAPTER VIII THE FIRST YEARS AT CHICAGO

lh^ARLY in 1895 Coulter took a trip to Washington and went over the entire collection of Oaxaca, Mexico, Umbellifers there. It was clear that much work of this order yet remained to be done. He and Rose working together established a new species, Musineon alpinum,1 and the fact that the genus should be accredited to Rafinesque and not Nuttall. Deanea,2 a new genus of Peucedanea, discovered on Pringle and Nelson's Mexican journey which had brought "the largest and most valuable collection of Umbelliferae ever made in Mexico," was also reported. At Lake Forest, Coulter was making some advances for botany. He chafed that he could not do more. Solanaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Cornaceae, and Cactaceae, as well as Umbelliferae with Rose, for the systematic botany of North America had been assigned by Britton to "President Coulter." He had begun with Solanaceae and that had kept him busy. Work that had been in progress for some time, however, was be­ ing completed. For example, Bray and Uline's Amaranthus work was being finished and put in synopsis form appearing in the Gazette. The work with Cactaceae continued. So thorough was Coulter's work that it took more time than he had with his duties as president and his teaching at Chicago on Saturday mornings. Coulter studied af­ finities and differentiating factors in Cactaceae, tracing evolutionary sequences from primitive forms through intermediate to present forms. Aberrant genera were also noted, as illustrated by his paper, "Some Affinities among Cactaceae,"3 read before Section G of the American Association meeting in Brooklyn in 1894. Indeed, he had become so much in demand as a lecturer that he could not always find time adequately to prepare his lectures. He wrote an article on "The Botanical Work of the Government,"4 explaining the vari­ ous divisions of the United States Department of Agriculture, and their work, and in the course of its preparation called on Coville and division chiefs for most of the material. For the Gazette, Coulter 2 I b i d . , X X , 372. B o t a n i c a l G a z e t t e , X X (1895), 258. X I X (1894), 371. i I b i d . , X X , 264. This evidently was repeated as a talk before the Botanical Club of

1

3Ibid.,

the University of Chicago. Additional material was gotten then from Rose.

The First Years at Chicago

149

had to use material sometimes long held in preparation. His "For­ mulae for Life Histories,"5 published at this time, was not neces­ sarily intended to meet an emergency but it filled a need when a con­ tribution was to be made and little time to gather original material. Coulter did almost no teaching at Lake Forest. This article, the pro­ duct of years of teaching experience, must have emanated from class­ rooms and laboratories at Crawfordsville and Bloomington. Time consuming, too, was the continuing relation with Harvard. Robinson planned that he should do some of the work for Gray's uncompleted Synoptical Fldra of North America. Systematization of Donnell Smith's Guatemala Compositae, most of the difficult ma­ terial of which was studied at the Gray herbarium, required further publication and in 1895 appeared another article, "New and Note­ worthy Compositae from Guatemala."6 In 1895 the Gazette announced that Coulter was to be a special lecturer at the eighth season of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Sometime during the summer he may have gone there but on July 20 he wrote Rose from Bay View, Michi­ gan, where he was in charge of a summer college on Traverse Bay not far from Petoskey,7 "I am working here 5 hours a day in lectures & laboratory], & in the absence of stenographer find letter writing almost impossible." His principal work was in botany and his son, John G., who that year was to study with Barnes, assisted in the labo­ ratory. For a number of summers Coulter and his family had not enjoyed a real vacation together. One year they had gone to Lake Superior, to "Pictured Rocks" near Marquette, and to Grand Island where for a time they lived in a fisherman's home. Coulter was like a boy with his children. It was like a revival of summers spent at Su­ gar Creek when living at Crawfordsville. He showed his son many plants of the region, pointing out the remarkable geographical plant distribution there. En route, it is said that while waiting for a boat Coulter met Bradley M. Davis, a young man born and early educated in Chicago. Davis had been a student at Indiana University under Douglas Houghton Campbell. When Campbell went with President Jordan to California, Davis went with him, graduating from Stanford Uni5 7

6 Ibid., p. 41. Botanical Gazette, XX (1895), 31. Coulter was director of the Bay View Summer School from 1893 to 1896.

150

John Merle Coulter

versity in 1892. Three years were spent in graduate study at Harvard, mainly under Farlow, and during that time Davis filled up the gap in knowledge "of the life history of Champa parvula by tracing the development from the spore to a stage identical with the mature con­ dition."8 In salt marshes near Cambridge he found "a new and very interesting alga-like organism," and naming it, presented a paper on it to botanists in Annals of Botany.8 His doctoral thesis, "Considerations on the carposporic type of re­ production," completed, Davis received the doctorate from Harvard University in 1895 and immediately began his connections with the University of Chicago with the title assistant in botany. Coulter was chiefly instrumental in his appointment since he interviewed Davis at Cambridge in the winter of 1895 but Davis, through two summers spent at Woods Hole, had made the acquaintance of several biologists on the Chicago faculty who may have had some concern in the matter. Since Clarke had left the university to take up the study of law, Davis was the only botanist at Chicago in the summer of 1895. His duties were to organize and teach an introductory course in botany. Davis's training under Campbell and Farlow had been sound. Campbell's morphological studies on liverworts, mosses, and ferns had made him an authority in these groups. In 1896 his book, The Structure and Develofment of the Mosses and Ferns, was reckoned by the Gazette as "beyond question the most important morphological work yet pub­ lished by an American botanist."10 Farlow was the leading cryptogamic botanist of the period with interests more particularly among the algae and fungi. Davis was fortunate in having such teachers, since they gave him the background from which he developed an introductory course based on the study of types from the lowest to the highest groups, and outlined a history of plant evolution. This course at first given in one quarter with two lectures and three labo­ ratory periods was later expanded to a year's course of three quarters and as such became the foundation course in plant morphology. Coulter took up his work at Lake Forest in the autumn of 1895 and on October 8 wrote Rose that work of mounting plants collected by Edward Palmer near Acapulco, Mexico, had begun. That same 8

Botanical Gazette, XVIII (1893), 79. Ibid., XX (1895), 125. See also p. 379. Also "Notes on the life-history of a bluegreen motile cell," by Davis, Botanical Gazette, XIX (1894), 96. 10 Botanical Gazette, XXI (1896), 93; Campbell's work was on the Archegoniatae. 9

The First Years at Chicago

151

month Bessey wrote at Lincoln a letter of farewell to Chancellor Canfield who had gone to Ohio State University as president. During summers Bessey had been lecturing at a summer school at Colorado Springs, accompanied by his son, Ernst, who aided him in botanical collecting and work in the laboratory. Bessey wrote: . . . I trust you will be as successful in Ohio as you were in Nebraska. Dr. MacLean is showing himself to be a good man for the place to which he has been called, has been well received by the faculty, students and the people of the city and state. . . . In the Denver Meeting of the National Educational Association a new section of "Science" was organized, and much to my astonishment they elected me to the presidency of the Section for the ensuing year. In the meeting of the "Botanical Society of America," the highest botanical society in the country, I was without my knowledge (I was not at the meet­ ing) made president. The meeting occurred in Springfield, Mass., and I did not feel that I could spend the time . . . to attend. You can imagine my sur­ prise and gratification when I learned of my election.

One of Bessey's first acts as president of the science section of the National Educational Association was to invite Coulter to speak. In December Coulter wrote, "It would be a very pleasant thing for me to attend the next meeting of the National Educational Association and speak for the botanists, but there are two factors which prevent anything in the way of a promise. The first is my own arrangements for the summer are very uncertain. . . . The next factor is that I do not know where the convention is to be held." Bessey wanted Coulter to lecture in botany and Jordan in zoology. "Big team that—Coul­ ter & Jordan," he later exclaimed. However, although Coulter pre­ pared his important study, "Nature Study and Intellectual Develop­ ment,"11 for presentation, he was not to deliver the address and for a very important reason. On February 11, 1896, the board of trustees of the University of Chicago authorized the appointment of John Merle Coulter as head professor of botany, effective October 1. At this time also the board acted to take over the ownership and financial responsibility of the Gazette, effective March 1. Coulter did not immediately accept. On February 21, the Chicago Evening Post announced Coulter's resigna­ tion as president of Lake Forest University and explained: 11 Science 1 n.s., IV (1896), 740-744, in which Coulter pleaded for nature study from nature itself and not textbooks.

152

John Merle Coulter

. . . Dr. Coulter was tendered this position by Dr. Harper several weeks ago but so strong was the effort on the part of the Lake Forest people to re­ tain him that he delayed his decision until recently, when he announced that he had concluded to accept the position. Just what effect the resignation of Dr. Coulter will have upon Lake Forest is not known. It has revived the report that the institution is to be swallowed up by the University of Chicago, but Dr. Goodspeed said today that the pres­ ent change had no bearing upon that question. President Coulter was loath to discuss his resignation to-day, but he admitted that it was true. "I have transmitted my resignation to the trustees of Lake Forest," he said. "Some time ago a position was offered to me on the faculty of the University of Chicago. I was asked to occupy the chair of botany and I have accepted it. I am a botanist and have a great fondness for the study of that science. . . ." President Coulter denied that his resignation bore any significance so far as the talked-of affiliation between the Lake Forest University and the Univer­ sity of Chicago was concerned. He was emphatic in his statement and left no room for doubt. The suggestion that there was any friction between the faculty and the board of trustees was also scouted by the retiring president. . . . Professor A. C. Dawson said that Dr. Coulter had spoken to some of the members of the faculty two or three days ago, intimating a likelihood of his taking a position in Chicago at an early date. The endowment of $1,000,000 to the Chicago University for the purpose of building up a botanical depart­ ment made it appear quite likely to every member of the faculty that Dr. Coulter would accept a position with Chicago University. . . .

That year from 5830 Rosalie Court, his new home, Coulter wrote to Bessey: I am much obliged for your kind words. I think my botanical friends in general, & you in particular, can understand better than others how such a position is more to be desired than a presidency. I hope now to do my share of botanical work. . . .

On April 9, he had written Rose: . . . You will see by the March Gazette that things have been moving pretty rapidly with me, & I am in the midst of the confusion of moving my family, organizing a dep[artmen]t crowded with students applications, and planning a great building for Botany for which the ground is to be broken the last of April. You will understand that taxonomic work is to have a large swing, & I hope that monograph work will go on at a lively rate. Uline is spending his second year with Engler at Berlin, & I think will come home well-fitted for the position of Curator. We shall, however, very soon get at our Umbellifer problems system­ atically. Now that the wretched Cactaceae are shelved for a time I shall be more free. In the present period of organization, however, I do not see how I can come on very soon, but I shall try to arrange for a visit of two weeks

The First Years at Chicago

153

during the last of April or early in May. Now that Botany is looking up with me I want to arrange with you definitely for future Umbellifer work.

A huge endowment had made possible the creation and establish­ ment of one of the greatest botanical departments to be found in the United States, and even in the world. On July 3 the cornerstone of the Hull biological laboratory was laid with ceremony. Coulter se­ lected the man who more than any living individual had influenced his career—George Lincoln Goodale—to deliver the dedicatory ad­ dress. Goodale spoke on "Some of the Relations of the New Natural History to Modern Thought and Modern Life," claiming forcefully, as Goodale was one of the ablest speakers in science, that biology should have a prominent place not only in schools but in the com­ munity. Coulter officiated at the cornerstone laying, making a brief statement of the purposes of the building. A reception was held that night at the University Quadrangle Club House where President Harper informally presided and visiting botanists were called on to respond with a few remarks. At the University of Illinois a new nat­ ural history building had recently been completed. The presence of Dr. Burrill was, therefore, significant. MacBride of Iowa, G. F. Pierce of Indiana, and Charles F. Millspaugh of the Field Columbian Museum were present. Barnes, of course, was present from the Uni­ versity of Wisconsin. This meeting may have provided Coulter and Barnes with an opportunity to discuss plans for the future. Coulter owned the Gazette. He could have delivered his publication to the new department as its official organ without the consent of either Barnes or Arthur. However, if the belief was true that before Coulter left Indiana University he had made plans with Harper some day to establish a great coordinated department of botany at Chicago and Lake Forest with Barnes in charge of plant physiology, Barnes had probably kept in touch with developments as they took place. In 1896 Bessey reviewed the concluding part of Coulter's work on Cactaceae :12 Nearly two years ago Dr. Coulter brought out the first part of his revision of the North American Cactaceae (Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. Vol. Ill, no. 2) and now in No. 7 of the same volume we have the concluding part. . . . The work is styled a freliminary revision, and the author says, in his prefatory note, that on account of the peculiar difficulties attending the revision "the under­ taking would have been abandoned only it seemed but proper to contribute 12

American Naturalist, XXX ( 1 8 9 6 ) , 4 8 6 .

154

John Merle Coulter

to the knowledge of the group such facts as had come to light in the course of several years study," a most commendable inclusion, indeed.13

Coulter had told Coville: "My reason for [the revision] is not so much that [it] is satisfactory, but that Dr. Engelmann's good unpub­ lished species are being captured by others." In August 1896 the Botanical Society of America convened at Buf­ falo. Before the botanical club, where papers were not read but in­ formally discussed, Coulter led a discussion on "Cross Fertilization and Heterospory." Before Section G of the American Association Coulter spoke on "Structures of the Embryo-sac" and "Some Re­ marks on Chalazogamy," in the latter of which Coulter's conclusion was that since chalazogamy had to do with a process and not with dif­ ferentiated organs, it was not usable as a basis for classification.14 American botanists honored Coulter's return to botany by electing him president of the Botanical Society of America. Honors crowded upon Coulter at this time. By many he was con­ sidered the leading botanist of North America and one of its most influential scientists. In September the rumor circulated, reenforced by at least one newspaper article, that Coulter had been offered the presidency of the University of Indianapolis. The Chicago Record published a story, quoting Dean Judson as having said: Yes, I have heard that the University of Indianapolis had offered him its presidency, and do not doubt that it is true. However, I do not think he will accept the honor, as he gave up the presidency of Lake Forest university which is a much larger institution than the one at Indianapolis in order to devote his entire time to botany, which is his passion and his life work. He is already the foremost botanist of this country, as his election as president of the American Society of Botanists goes to show, and the assumption of the duties of a college president would seriously interfere with his chosen work.

In 1896 an alliance, similar to the one formed at Lake Forest University, had been agreed upon at Indianapolis between Butler College, the Indiana Law School, the Indiana Dental College, and the Medical College of Indiana. The plan was to create a great Uni­ versity of Indianapolis and evidently Coulter was asked to be the first president of the enlarged institution. There was little doubt now as to what course Coulter had set for his life work. Undoubtedly, if such an offer was made to him, he rejected it. As it happened, the 13 Botanical Gazette., XXI (1896), 242. See Contrib. from the U.S. Nat. Herb. Ill, 91132, 355-4.62, for Coulter's work. 14 Botanical Gazette, XXII (July-December 1896), 218 ff.

The First Years at Chicago

155

University of Indianapolis remained little more than a name. Each member of the alliance retained its individual entity and eventually two of the units became part of Indiana University.15 Coulter settled to his task. He had proved himself an administra­ tor} in fact, that he was so recognized is shown by Educational Re­ view's selection of him as one of a number to write on American col­ lege problems. Coulter had written for the Review on "The Cost of Undergraduate Instruction."16 But his visions were in botany and he became an apostle of the botany which he foresaw developing. The missionary sense had been in him since his years at Hanover. Coulter did not limit his dreams to his own particular subject— taxonomy—he saw the science developing many sides. At the Botanical Society's meeting at Buffalo when Coulter was elected its highest executive, Conway MacMillan read two papers, one "On the Distribution of Plants in a Fresh-water Insular Region," the other, "Adaptation of Coniferae to Wind-swept Stations," both Lake of the Woods studies. The infant subject of ecology was grow­ ing. MacMillan, who really had been chosen by Nebraska's "Sem. Bot." to go to Minnesota, was developing a most aggressive depart­ ment at the university there. In Pillsbury hall, botany had herbarium and seminar rooms, a morphological and chemical laboratory, a labo­ ratory for experimental physiology, a special laboratory, a dark room, special work room, and offices. Some of the most approved laboratory equipment to be found in the United States was at Minnesota where Daniel Trembly MacDougal in 1893 had gone from Purdue to take up one of the first, if not the first, instructorships in America devoted solely to experimental plant physiology. Other institutions had work in "vegetable physiology" experimental in content but mostly descriptive in character. MacDougal developed pure experi­ mentation, both qualitative and quantitative in nature. For purposes of the department he translated and edited in 1894 Walter Oels's Exferimental Plant Physiologyj a guide of laboratory exercises, the following year made into Experimental Plant Physiology,17 a manual 15

See Jacob Piatt Dunn, Greater lndianafolis (Lewis Publishing· Co., 1910), pp. 436,

56516

May 1894, pp. 417-421. York: Henry Holt & Co., vi and 88 pp. In the course of these publications a controversy between Barnes and MacDougal came to a focus over the use of the terms "photosynthesis" or "photosyntax" for "the synthetical process in plants, brought about by protoplasm in the presence of chlorophyll and light." 17New

156

John Merle Coulter

for high schools and colleges. On May 25, 1895, he sailed on the City of Rome for Glasgow from where he went to Leipzig, Germany, studying with Wilhelm PfefFer, and visited in the course of his jour­ ney laboratories of Sachs and Hermann Vochting and other of the important leaders in Germany, Holland, and England. MacDougal's studies for a while were much concerned with sources of plant ir­ ritability. On his trip abroad factors involved in the transmission of stimuli occupied most of his time. Research work with Pfeffer led to his noted study in root physiology, "The Curvature of Roots,"18 probably also "The mechanism of the curvature of tendrils."19 The former work obviously showed the value to agriculture of research physiology. Stanley Coulter, then a dean at Purdue, possibly with the aid of Arthur initiated proceedings whereby MacDougal was given one of three Ph.D. degrees ever granted by that university to a person not in residence. MacDougal's paper on tendrils was pre­ sented at Buffalo before Section G of the American Association. In 1896 the Gazette published another study, "The mechanism of movement and transmission of impulses in Mimosa and other sen­ sitive plants."20 And in June of that year he and Arthur sailed for Europe, Arthur to study at Bonn with Strasburger and MacDougal to study at Tubingen with Vochting. Returning in August, MacDougal addressed an open letter to the Gazettei "Can Research Work Be Accomplished in American Laboratories?"21 in which he explained that by original work is not meant the collection of a number of random observations, but the acquisition of new facts, which added to those already known will suffice for the formulation of new laws, or the extension, or critical delimitation of existing generalizations.

MacDougal's early botanical explorations will be discussed in an­ other chapter. Coulter, like MacDougal and all American botanists, looked to the Europeans for works of greatest dimensions. Many times he re­ sorted to English works, S. H. Vines's textbooks being often used, as well as works of others. Stephen Hales was the father of plant physiology, although Sachs, of course, was the subject's great "de­ liverer." A Gazette editorial described the situation in botany:22 18 Botanical Gazette, XXIII (1897), 307-366. Said MacDougal, "The organs of the irritable mechanisms of roots exhibit a physiological rather than a morphological differen­ 19 Ann. Bot., XXXIX (1896), 373-402. tiation." 20 Botanical Gazette, XXII (1896), 293-300. 21 Ibid., p . 1 8 8 . 22 Ibid., XX, 33.

The First Years at Chicago

157

It is probably true that never in the history of botany has the development of our knowledge advanced at such a rapid rate as now. . . . It seems im­ possible now to write a book upon any general subject in botany which is not antiquated in some parts before it reaches our shelves. Especially it is true in reference to generalizations, concerning phylogeny. Treub's discovery of the so-called Chalazal entrance of the pollen-tube in Casuarina no sooner lays the foundation of a reconstructed scheme of classification, current long enough to be followed in other publications, than two other observers announce the same condition of things in Amentiferae. The immense importance of the de­ velopment and form of the archesporium is no sooner embalmed in books that have appeared and have been announced than Strasburger transfers the "de­ velopmental center of gravity" to the mother-cells, and opens up a vast field of new inquiry in the numerical relations of chromosomes. The boundary line between gametophyte and sporophyte is no sooner well established in our texts and minds and generalizations, than it is shifted. Examples might be multiplied on every hand. . . .

The truth was that the very foundations of botany were being at­ tacked and much of its doctrine modified. Much was being contrib­ uted that kept widening the science's orbit. In 1895 appeared Dr. Eugen Warming's Lehrbuch der okologischen Pjlanzengeografhie and Coulter reviewed the work for the Gazette:23 The geographical distribution of plants has received much attention for many years, but the earlier observers could do little more than accumulate facts and outline general zones. With the development of plant physiology it became possible to organize these facts upon a scientific basis, and this organiza­ tion introduces us into the great modern field of ecology of which geographical distribution is a conspicuous part. Many recent contributions to this region of ecology are scattered through botanical literature, and the time has come for the summing up of results in some general work. Such a work has been prepared by Dr. Warming and the German translation by Dr. Knoblauch is now before us. . . . . . . In reference to the origin of species, the author believes that plants possess an innate power of adapting themselves directly to new conditions, a view which he supports by numerous illustrations of direct response of plants to changed conditions. This he regards as one of the greatest factors in the evolution of plants. Others are acquired variability, depending upon descent and not environment; natural selection; crossing of species; and correlation between the parts of a plant, a change in one part affecting the others. . . .

The possibilities of ecological study at once impressed Coulter. Coulter did not introduce the course in comparative morphology at Chicago. Dr. Davis had commenced the teaching of that subject be23

Based upon the German translation—Botanical Gazette, XXII (July-December

1896), 173.

158

John Merle Coulter

fore Coulter became head professor. Nevertheless, ecology as a study was introduced by Coulter and for a while he taught the subject. Morphology eventually was divided: Coulter having special mor­ phology of spermatophytes and Davis, special morphology of algae. Taxonomy, moreover, remained Coulter's principal teaching course. On December 8,1896, Coulter wrote Rose: . . . I wish that I could come on to Washington some time this Winter and enjoy with you the study of the new Mexican Umbelliferae. You can hardly imagine, however, the confinement of my work here. It is exceedingly pleasant but cannot be ,left. The new building is under roof. The old quarters are crowded and altogether things are in need of constant direction. I have been holding on to your Umbellifers by a kind of courtesy, in the hope that the time would come when I could really settle down to work, and pound them over: I believe that time has at last come, and that I am free to do a good deal of critical work. This does not mean that I am not hindered in leaving here. In reference to Dr. Palmer's collections, the University here is in no posi­ tion to buy collections until it has the building equipped and out of the way. After that it will certainly have to buy somewhat largely, and I hope that all the Palmer set that I do not have will be available in some shape. You asked about the bill for the Acapulco plants. I suppose that this account went the way of others in the financial chaos at Lake Forest. I do not find any state­ ment concerning it. Please send me the amount and I will see to it that it is paid here out of our present appropriation for material. . . . I have just finished the Hypericaceae of the "Synoptical Flora," and am at work limbering up on a number of collections. It really seems as though I would again get at some taxonomic work.

Until Hull botanical laboratory was completed, botany at Chicago suffered for lack of space. In 1894 in Kent chemical laboratory a room had been made available for what study was had under Clarke. On Davis's arrival the botanical laboratory was transferred to two rooms in Walker Museum and there it remained for two years. As completion of the new building neared, student applications increased and expanded facilities became imperative. However, for a multi­ plicity of reasons, Coulter could not commence enlarging taxonomic studies to incorporate new morphological and anatomical data. He studied the Engler and Prantl system avidly and kept up with in­ creasing literature. But, being also interested in the outdoor phases of systematic study, he gave much time to the field. Ecology thus developed as a sort of glorified natural history study. As he had inspired Chamberlain, whose completed work on "The

The First Years at Chicago

159

Embryo-sac of Aster novae-angliae" was regarded by Coulter and Bessey as very valuable, so Coulter interested another young stu­ dent—Henry Chandler Cowles of Oberlin, Ohio—in gathering ma­ terials for ecological investigation. Cowles was a graduate of Oberlin College, had worked in government geological service, and had won a fellowship at Chicago in geology but under Coulter was won over to botany. More and more Coulter and Cowles saw possibilities in studying plants in their habitats. The great sand dune area had in­ terested Coulter from the beginning of trips made as part of his teaching. It isn't unlikely that Coulter's Hanover days of plant col­ lecting in northwest Indiana influenced his great interest in ecological research in that region. A wealth of unassembled data awaited studies there. Coulter began going with Cowles on his first field studies. So did Davis. But as the field of study became further and further away, Coulter, because of his knee-condition, could not accompany them. Cowles pushed far into the regions, at times arranging with the rail­ roads to transport his equipment and material to distant points by freight trains. The subject became Cowles's doctoral thesis. President Harper induced Otis W. Caldwell to become a Chicago student. One night he and a friend, both then considering graduate work, called upon President Harper. Harper told Caldwell that America's greatest botanist was to teach at Chicago that year. So Caldwell registered. Caldwell demonstrated immediately unusual ability as a laboratory technician. He was soon placed in charge of laboratory work in the introductory course in botany. Chamberlain and Caldwell thus became Coulter's assistants and no abler men could have been found. As often a great man becomes a symbol of work well done by men working with him so Coulter rose in fame and glory. Coulter had what Chamberlain did not have—a knowledge unsurpassed in taxonomy and the ability to grasp principles and ex­ press himself clearly. Chamberlain had what Coulter did not have— a remarkable aptitude as a technician. With Caldwell having some knowledge in morphology, taxonomy, and laboratory methods, in­ vestigations in special morphology of plant groups were soon under way. Facilities limited or not, work began. Before the year 1896 drew to a close, Coulter had made a considerable start toward the smooth functioning of taxonomy, morphology, and ecology. By 1897 the University of Chicago department had a library of

i6o

John Merle Coulter

3,000 volumes. There were greenhouses in Washington Park and extensive planting in both Washington and Jackson Parks. Coulter's herbarium was owned by the university. A botanical club was formed. Hull botanical laboratory was nearing completion. Coulter pro­ ceeded to enlarge the scope and influence of the Gazette. Additional American associate editors had been added. Dr. Volney M. Spalding of the University of Michigan, a teacher of Campbell, recently a student of advanced work in Germany, and author of the invaluable Guide to the Study of Common Plants, an Introduction to Botany published in 1893, had stood for some time as one of the ablest exponents of the "new botany." Coulter regarded him as an excellent teacher and the Gazette had characterized his Guide as an "excellent book" which, though a laboratory guide, associated form with function and had much of the general textbook atmosphere about it. Spalding, Bessey, and Beal had stood as leaders with Coulter in ad­ vocating and pointing the way toward introducing a modern teaching of botany in high schools. It is said that several years before, Spalding had had his manual, while yet in typewritten form, tried out by a teacher in the Detroit high schools and there is reason for believing that this experimental work may even have antedated Bessey's Botany for High Schools and Colleges. So far as is known, however, there is no means of establishing this fact. In any event Spalding was made an associate editor of the Gazette. Others added were George F. At­ kinson of Cornell, Roland Thaxter of Harvard, and William Trelease of the Missouri Botanical Garden whose annual reports were coming "to be regarded as among the most important contributions to American botany." Trelease's studies of hickories and walnuts were regarded by Bessey as rendering "good service" and there is no doubt that Coulter regarded him as one of the ablest of American botanists. Coulter was not satisfied with having the Gazette known as prima­ rily an American journal. Such great works as Engler and Drude's rewriting of Grisebach's classical Vegetation der Erde, the great Bonn textbook,24 in which Strasburger authored morphology, Noll physiol­ ogy, Schenck cryptogams, and Schimper phanerogams, DeToni's SylIoge Algarum Omnium Hucusque cognitarum, Engler and Prantl's Die Natilrlichen Pflanzenfamilien of which in life histories phanero­ gams were complete, algae and fungi progressing, and bryophytes 24

Lehrbuch der Botanik.

The First Years at Chicago

161

and pteridophytes, it was hoped, would be completed in 1898— these and other of the most notable contributions which botany had theretofore known—impressed on Coulter the need for foreign rep­ resentation among the Gazette's associate editors. Accordingly, the Gazette announced in 1897 that Casimir DeCandolle of Geneva, DeToni of Padua, Engler of Berlin, Guignard of Paris, Matsumura of Tokyo, Noll of Bonn, H. Marshall Ward of Cambridge, Warming of Copenhagen, and Wittrock of the Academy of Sciences at Stock­ holm were added to the staff. The originally small Hanover Bulletin had now so enlarged its number of pages that two bound volumes a year were required for annual binding. To Chicago at this time came John Henry Schaffner, attracted by the presence there of Coulter and a brilliant young paleontologist, Dr. George Bauer, who had excellent material from the Galapagos Islands. Coulter's prominence as a morphologist attracted Schaffner from the University of Michigan. Some of Coulter's ablest writing had been reviews and in 1896 he wrote many. In 1895 a review of Strasburger's "The Periodic Reduction of Chromosomes in Living Organisms" had appeared and this also, with some published work by Schaffner in the Gazette·, brought to Chicago one of America's future able botanists.25 In 1896 was published his study in reproduc­ tion and genetics, "The Embryo-sac of Alisma f lantago," similar to Chamberlain's graduate thesis and Contribution I from the Hull Bo­ tanical Laboratory, "The Embryo-sac of Aster novae-angliae." Soon would appear Contribution III from the Hull Botanical Laboratory, Chamberlain's "Contribution to the Life History of Salix." In 1896 Schaffner came to Chicago and, while he worked with Bauer, he also took work in botany. Studying advanced morphology in gymnosperms and angiosperms, he did morphological research throughout the year, producing "two papers," which Chamberlain has since said, "became classics, the life history of Sagittaria and the Macrospore Nucleus of Lilium philadelfhicum."2β Chamberlain went on to say: On account of the unfortunate wording of the title of the Lilium paper, it was many years before Schaffner received the credit he deserved. In this 25 See Adolph E. Waller, "Professor John Henry SchafFner," Ohio Academy of Science, XLI, No. 3, pp. 253-286, for an excellent account of Schaffner's work, with complete bib­ liography. 26 Adolph E. Waller, "Professor John Henry Schaffner," o f . c i t . , p. 282.

102

John Merle Coulter

paper he proved that Strasburger and Guignard, leaders in cytology of that day, were wrong in their claim that in the reduction of chromosomes in Angiosperms, there is a double longitudinal splitting. Schaffner described a transverse splitting at the second division. Later it was shown that SchafFner's transverse splitting was a separation of whole chromosomes. This, however, was com­ paratively unimportant, because Schaffner had proved a qualitative division in the Weismann sense instead of a quantitative division as Strasburger and Guig­ nard claimed. SchafFner's. figures show the situation as it is now seen with the most approved technique.

Waller, commenting on the same subject, said Schaffner's study contained "the startling observation of both a longitudinal and a transverse separation of chromosomes during meiotic processes. It was this type of division which was needed to account for Mendelian proportions in offspring that botanists were soon to be looking for. Schaffner was the first botanist to see it."27 Coulter's part in this work had been largely that of director. A general study of monocotyledons was in progress as were studies in fertilization and embryogeny in conifers, particularly Pinus and Taxus. Coulter explained his participation in the Lilium contribu­ tion: My own part is the organization of observations made by the group of stu­ dents . . . , in so far as they pertain to the embryo sac, fertilization, and the em­ bryo. Mr. Chamberlain, from his own observations, deals with the pollen grain; while Mr. Schaffner presents his own observations and conclusions in reference to certain cytological phenomena connected with the "reduction division" in the embryo sac.28

In Contribution II from the Hull Botanical Laboratory, "Notes on the Fertilization and Embryogeny of Conifers," Coulter said:29 During the autumn quarter of 1896 a group of graduate students under my direction made a study of the special morphology of gymnosperms. . . . The work was supplementary to the regular research work among angiosperms in which each student is engaged. . . . The work of the authors . . . was largely confirmed in the minutest details, but in looking over the results of the quarter it occurred to me that enough additional observations had been made to justify this somewhat informal record. It would be strange if the examination of large series of well made preparations by seven or eight trained observers did not result in something noteworthy, especially in a group so little studied. . . .

Schaffner, Chamberlain, John G. Coulter, William D. Merrell, Caldwell, and Cowles were among the most prominent of the group. Sometimes, as in the Lilium study, Coulter appeared as a coauthor. 27 29

Ibid., pp. 257-258. Ibid., p. 4.0.

28

Botanical Gazette, XXIII (January-July 1897), 412.

The First Years at Chicago

163

Sometimes, as in the conifer study, Coulter appeared as sole author of the published results, always giving due credit where it was com­ ing. Sometimes, Coulter's name did not appear at all, as in Schaffner's "The Development of the Stamens and Carpels of Tyfha Iatifolia^ where indebtedness to Coulter "for assistance and valuable sugges­ tions" was acknowledged.30 As a matter of fact, when Coulter de­ livered a paper at the meeting of the Botanical Society of America held in Toronto in August 1897, "Pollen grains and the antipodal cells," he commented :31 The recent discovery (of the author's laboratory) of the occasional occur­ rence of a small lenticular cell, cut off before the usual divisions of the micro­ spore nucleus, and also of the occasional direct division of the "vegetative" nucleus, suggest again the older homologies.

When he had reviewed Strasburger's "The Periodic Reduction of Chromosomes in Living Organisms," he had regarded the com­ munication "very important"32 since so many previously held views had been affected by its contents. Coulter was president of the Botanical Society of America during 1897. At the meeting of the society held at Boston in 1898 he de­ livered his address as retiring president and the subject chosen was, "The Origin of Gymnosperms and the Seed Habit." Bessey the year before had taken for the subject of his retiring presidential address, "Phylogeny and Taxonomy of Angiosperms." There he had elabo­ rated on the relations of paleobotany to phylogeny. Under the able leadership of early taxonomists in paleobotany such as Lesquereux and Newberry in the United States and Sir William Dawson in Canada with work subsequently added by Frank Hall Knowlton, Lester Ward, D. P. Penhallow, Arthur Hollick, and others, paleo­ botany had some time before laid the groundwork for the great the­ ories of plant descent and plant environmental conditions through the long epochs of geologic history which modern botany, especially ecology, has since enlarged and perfected. Methods largely confined to exterior structural studies and materials too often insufficient for complete study misled the older paleobotanists. For example, it is believed that Lesquereux falsely assumed the existence of a tropical climate in North America and thereby confused temperate genera 30

Botanical Gazette, XXIV (July-December 1897), 93, X X (1895), 23.

szJiid.,

^1Ibid., p. 181.

164

John Merle Coulter

with tropical and subtropical ones. Nevertheless toward the conclu­ sion of the Lesquereux-Gray generation which sought to coordinate work in botany and paleobotany, great progress taxonomically had been made and with new work of the next generation the relative sequences of great groups were being found like that revealed by studies of living forms. But in subordinate divisions, especially that of thallophytes and bryophytes, the imperfection of the geologic record and remains confronted botanists with huge problems.33 The hope of direct evidence by which to trace the genealogy and phylogeny of all families of plants was not to be realized for many years. Even then, only by skillful interpolations could progress be made toward filling up the large gaps. As Bessey said:34 . . . we know that the earliest plants were simple, homogeneous-celled, aquatic organisms. We know that ferns and gymnosperms preceded angiosperms. We know that the angiosperms which first appeared were of lower types, and that the highest types known were wanting until very late in geo­ logical time. It is true, moreover, that we are not confined to the direct evidence fur­ nished by the palaeontological record. In the individual development of every plant (ontogenesis) there is a recapitulation of its ancestral development (phylo­ genesis). A critical study of the development of the individual must throw light upon the past history of the species. When we know every step in the formation of each plant we shall be able to trace [its] phylogeny. . . . There is another line of inquiry open to us, namely, the morphological, in which account is taken of the varying development of homologous tissues, members, and organs. Rightly interpreted, the results of morphological stu­ dies are of very high importance in determining genetic relationships. . . .

To be a competent paleobotanist now required knowledge in taxon­ omy, morphology, anatomy, and ecology in the enlarged senses. Coulter's address on "The Origin of Gymnosperms and the Seed Habit"35 was a magnificent analysis of the origins of naked seed plants and the development of "the seed habit." Technical in nature, schol­ arly, and possibly in some part based on investigations conducted at Hull botanical laboratory, some of the conclusions were of interest: A great Cordaites plexus, more extensive than the one usually included un­ der that name, represented the characteristic Palaeozoic seed plants. . . . From it the gymnosperm lines, at least the cycads and conifers, were 83 See David P. Penhallow's presidential address before the Society for Plant Morphol­ ogy and Physiology, December 1900, Science, XIII, n.s. (February 1901), entitled, "A Decade of North American Paleobotany." 34 Botanical Gazette, XXIV (July-December 1897), pp. 145 et seq. 35 Science, VIII, n.s. (September 23, 1898), 377-385.

The First Years at Chicago

165

derived, the usually recognized Cordaites representing a transition stage to­ ward conifers. The frequent independent appearance of heterospory is to be expected, as it probably results from inequalities of nutrition in connection with the de­ velopment of antheridia and archegonia. The retention of the megaspore, resulting in the seed habit, follows the ex­ treme sterilization of the megasporangium, which is attained with the organ­ ization of but one megaspore. With the development of a single megaspore im­ bedded in sterile tissue shedding becomes mechanically difficult, unnecessary, and even disadvantageous from the standpoint of nutrition. . . .

Nutrition was a subject in which Barnes at the University of Wis­ consin had done much physiological investigation among living plants. Barnes's other principal interest was the bryophytes in which, with F. D. Heald, he had published a second and enlarged Key to the Mosses of North America incorporating collected descriptions of species not described in Lesquereux and James's Manual. A revision of the North American Fissidens and a few other works of lesser im­ portance constituted Barnes's taxonomic studies. They were not very great. Barnes had devoted himself to developing physiology and ecology, and teaching. However, in 1898 there was published his Plant Life, a textbook for secondary schools, and, as it was among the very first texts which put physiology and ecology on a plane for sec­ ondary schools, Barnes immediately sprang into prominence as an author in his individual right. Arthur, Barnes, and Coulter planned a revision of their Handbook of Plant Dissection. On November 4, 1897, Coulter told Arthur: We certainly ought to do something, and that right soon. I think that if we could have a meeting and lay out the plan of the thing, it could be put to­ gether rapidly. I have now so thoroughly organized the work in my part of the book, that it would be a simple matter to put together the portions. Barnes is doubtless in the same condition. I do not know in what condition you are to bring together rapidly your part of the book. I take it for granted that you have not recently taken students over that ground. It seems to me though that our reputations demand a recasting of the book and that at a very early date.

The renowned "A.B.C. book," on which the authors had built much of their early reputations, was now out of date. The book which had had much to do with turning botany from the herbarium sheet to the laboratory manual and had helped place morphology beside taxonomy as a study of equal dignity, was not being used after little more than a decade of existence.

i66

John Merle Coulter

Arthur had also kept busy. The year Barnes produced his Plant Life, Arthur with D. T. MacDougal published Living Plants and Their Properties. He had continued his useful studies in fungous diseases and weed control, devising sprays and methods for spraying found immediately useful in agriculture and horticulture. In 1896 he had discovered the value of formaldehyde (under the trade name "formalin") as a fungicide, specifically for potato scab. This study had been carried on by one of his pupils, Henry Luke Bolley, advocat­ ing the remedy's use against smut in oats. The definition of such plant diseases as carnation rust, curly top of sugar beet, stigmanose of carnation, and others was some of Arthur's work. Bessey and Ar­ thur followed separate but similar courses in fungi studies. Both established valuable relations with the United States Department of Agriculture. Though Bessey excelled like Coulter in morphology, in other ways Bessey's and Arthur's courses were similar. Both invented apparatus for investigation. Bessey's arc indicator, used at Iowa Agri­ cultural, began early to demonstrate plant growth, while Arthur's auxonometer and centrifugal apparatus, it is said, contributed the first instrumentation to issue from a North American laboratory for phys­ iological study. Bessey was always proud of Arthur as a pupil. After his early inventions, Arthur's department at Purdue produced another auxonometer, a respirometer, a hygrometer, a slide with binding parts, and a mercury reservoir. Probably Arthur's clinostat should also be mentioned. MacDougal, his pupil, ingeniously continued the work in the laboratory at Minnesota. Others also contributed to the early inventive spirit in American botany—Barnes, Bumpus, Swezey, and others. Inventions in botany, moreover, did not always proceed from instruments. Bessey invented an important insecticide, a product of ex­ perience and observation more than analysis by means of instruments. With all, instruments to record root pressure, study geotropism, reg­ ister balance, instruments to record both simple and complex phe­ nomena in plant physiology, were being steadily improved. Physi­ ology was soon to enlarge by leaps and bounds. During the last half of the year 1897, the Gazette editorialized:38 It has seemed to the writer that two lines of botanical research, much cul­ tivated at the present time, are in danger of sterility. The two lines referred 8 6 XXIV

(July-December 1897), 213.

The First Years at Chicago

167

to are the conventional cytology and physiology. The danger lies not in these great subjects, but in the narrow lines along which they are being cultivated. In the cytological field, by the use of various killing fluids and stains, investi­ gators are obtaining various appearances. . . . It is possible . . . that the me­ chanical cataloguing of these appearances may not be the most important direction of cytological investigation. . . . The study of the effects of varying conditions upon the production of the various phases of cell activity would seem to be the fertile direction of cytology at present. . . . In reference to the conventional physiology the same general statements are appropriate. Instead of attacking large problems, much of the work is ad­ vancing along purely mechanical lines in the record of isolated details. In other words, the outlying and endless details of expression of a few underlying principles are being catalogued, important enough in a way, but merely an incident in the progress of real physiology. The fundamental problems are brought into view from the ecological standpoint. There is need of a re­ nascence of physiology. . . . The founders of modern plant physiology are being followed in the mechanical phases of their work rather than in their fructifying ideas.

At the time of the appearance of this editorial Coulter had been made a member of a commission named to establish a tropical station for plant investigation at Jamaica. The Gazette and MacDougal had taken the lead in propounding this idea37 and MacDougal, being au­ thorized by botanists, appointed Campbell, Farlow, and Coulter to accompany an expedition to the West Indies in the summer of 1897 to begin work and select a locality. Coulter had the summer work at Bay View—in 1896 opening and organizing the school had com­ pelled substitution of Atkinson and Spalding as speakers for botany at the Buffalo meeting of the National Educational Association— and ever persistently he sought time to go to Washington and study with Rose at the National Museum. In 1897 they had published their most recent collaboration, Revision of Lilaeopsis.38 During the sum­ mer of 1897 Rose went to Mexico visiting fifteen states and territories including little known parts of the Sierra Madre, Guaymas, La Paz, Mazatlan, and crossing the Sierra Madre range north of Acaponeta, went on excursions from Rosario and Bolanos. Earlier, while Coulter was at Lake Forest, Rose had begun his notable career of botanical exploring in the west, southwest, and Mexico. His frequent absences from Washington made scheduling arrangements more difficult for Coulter. Nevertheless, although duties at Chicago pressed hard on 37

See MacDougal's open letter to the Gazette, XXII (1896), 4.96. Botanical Gazette., XXIV (July-December 1897), 47-49. In 1898, Coulter with Rose published "Notes on Lilaeopsis," Botanical Gazette, XXV, 53-54. 38

ι68

John Merle Coulter

him, Coulter wrote Farlow concerning the Jamaica tropical station project: Yes, MacDougal stopped here on his return from the east and gave me an outline of his doings. I am exactly of your opinion that we should not relate ourselves to any organization, and that if we have anything to say at the A.A.A.S., all right, but not because we feel bound to do so. My only thought in connection with the A3S is that it is a convenient organization to bring botanists together. I certainly agree with you that our time limit need not be set by the summer meetings. If we get to the tropics & find that we need to use more time or should come at some other season, let us do so, without reporting to any one. As to the financial side of it, I find myself in a curious position. Of the $1,000,000 gift for biology, under which I am here, there is a provision for the establishment of a station or stations at a distance from the university as other conditions seem desirable. Under this provision I could go to the tropics & establish a station for the Univ[ersity] of Chicago. But I don't want this. In my notion it is essential that this station be free from the domination of any institution or society. I don't want a trop [ical] station for this Univ[ersity], but I do want this Univ[ersity] to gain with others in establishing one that we can all feel free to use. The President & I think differently on this very point, & I am trying to handle the situation so as to get the benefit of the Culver endowment & still have an interinstitutional station. I think I will succeed. . . . I am more than pleased that you can be a member of· this Commission. I believe that it can do great things for botanical science & for botanical work in this country.

Coulter had in mind the establishment of a laboratory like the one flourishing at Buitenzorg. Professor Goebel, one of the greatest of European botanists who before Coulter was made head professor at Chicago was considered for his position, strongly endorsed the proj­ ect. British botanists came out in its favor. But a most unfortunate tragedy interposed. It was arranged at length that MacDougal and Campbell should go to Jamaica during the summer and report to the botanical society which they did. Coulter and Farlow were to go the following winter and ascertain conditions in that season of the year. Dr. J. E. Humphrey, of Johns Hopkins, arranged to take a group of zoology students to explore in the vicinity of Porto Antonio, cooperat­ ing with Campbell and MacDougal in examining the island for pur­ poses of the station. And Humphrey,39 while there, died. Coulter 39

The rumor circulated in America that he was "taken with malaria."

The First Years at Chicago

169

spent the summer of 1897 as he told Farlow he would when he ex­ plained: My new botanical building is in process of construction and is to be dedicated July 1st, and is to be generally organized and housewarmed during the Sum­ mer.

On April 8, he also told Rose: Now that you know (in spite of Millspaugh) that the Univ[ersity] of Chicago proposes to develop a herbarium I hope you will keep it in mind, & do what you can in the way of sets you are distributing.

Teaching and this work kept him busy and, planning to take his vacation during the winter quarter, he wrote Farlow on September I: While we were together at Toronto, Campbell, MacDougal, and I con­ sidered the matter of a board of directors for the proposed Tropical Labo­ ratory. It seemed wise to us at the time to include a representative from Eng­ land and one from Germany. Darwin and Goebel were suggested. . . . My whole position in the matter is that such representation may possibly do us good, and could not possibly do us harm. If in your larger experience with foreigners and with management you think this position is not tenable, I am willing to abandon it at once. And now a word in reference to your letter of August 30. Swingle and Fairchild are interested in this movement and hope for such an affair as that at Buitenzorg, and Fairchild is ambitious to be a director of it like Treub. This is the key to their voluminous correspondence with MacDougal, Fairchild's interview with me, and also the interview with you. It is hard to im­ press them with the fact that we cannot possibly consider any such idea, and that no resident director is contemplated. . . .

Coulter reaffirmed his intention to accompany Farlow for three months during the winter, favored declaring the existence of the board of directors at once, and inquired to know more concerning the cause of Humphrey's death. In October he learned that the cause may have been yellow fever and, if so, he told Farlow, ". . . we must proceed with great caution." In December he informed MacDougal he believed it unwise to take a group of students to the West Indies. Farlow and Coulter did not go at all. On March 1, Coulter wrote Farlow: As it has turned out my absence here during the winter would have been almost disastrous to the department. With the opening of the summer Barnes is to begin his work here as a professor. That means that I shall be free to run off any quarter. So that next winter will be far better for me than this winter could possibly have been.

170

John Merle Coulter

Again he wrote on May 17, 1898: It is my intention to come to the A.A.A.S. meeting. I have been so busy that I felt it impossible to announce any paper for the meeting beyond the one that I am compelled to give as the retiring President of the Botanical Society of America. However, I may be able to scare up some titles. The trouble with us is that we run all summer and most of my force has decided to work here during the summer. However, I think that both Davis and I will be on hand and I suppose also Barnes will be counted at that time as a part of the force. As soon as I know anything as to titles I shall write to you. Is it not a good thing that we did not undertake to settle in the West Indies until after the war?

Thus ended for a time the project for establishing a tropical station .in the West Indies. The Spanish-American War arrived. Coulter was appointed chairman of a committee of the National Educational Association to consider botanical instruction in secondary schools, a part of a larger general committee considering all scientific instruction. Of course, he consulted Bessey as they, Barnes, MacDougal, Farlow, and others realized the remarkable expansion taking place in all North American science. An ever-present need of read­ justing curricula to new knowledge was being felt. Coulter's moving to Chicago had interrupted his doing work as planned for Britton's great systematic flora of North America. Be­ sides, Britton and Addison Brown had published An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States, Canada, and the British Possessions, two volumes having appeared, and Coulter had found some points with which the Gazette disagreed: . . . The general principles of the nomenclature adopted have already re­ ceived the sanction of the Gazette. From our standpoint, however, the most serious changes in the nomenclature of the book arise not from the application of certain rules of nomenclature, but from the extreme views as to generic limitations. . . .40

The third edition of Chapman's Flora of the Southern States had appeared and Coulter commented, "Botanists have a deep feeling of gratitude to the venerable author who has laid them under obligation for so many years." Robinson's continuation of Gray's Synoptical Flora of North America had been published and Coulter said, "It is becoming increasingly evident... that the continuation of the Synop­ tical Flora could not have fallen into more competent hands." He 40 XXlV

(July-December 1897), 120.

The First Years at Chicago

171

himself had contributed Hypericaceae, Coulter had adopted the met­ ric system as had Bessey. Both agreed that missionary work in edu­ cating American botanists in English units of measurement was nec­ essary. So also agreed Rose and officials of the National Herbarium. As to Britton's Illustrated Flora, however, Bessey was more approv­ ing: It has been a matter of profound regret on the part of many of the friends and admirers of Dr. Gray that his books should receive such a treatment as to prematurely relegate them to the list of antiquated and obsolescent works. A new manual is, therefore, of peculiar interest at the present time, and this interest is enhanced by the fact that it comes from the scientific home of the older botanist, Torrey. . . . It is in every way a new work—new in its plan, new in its descriptions, new in its illustrations. . . .41

Bessey was "more and more impressed" with the Engler and Prantl systematic arrangement, believing it "would give renewed life and vigor to systematic botany, and doubtless will be the means by which many a student will be led to the study of the more difficult families." In this Coulter agreed. However, there were botanists that believed that Britton's Flora was competitive with Gray's Manual. Plant World, a new magazine of Botany, took somewhat this view. Coulter never took this position. It was the "greatest help since the original publication of Gray's Manual." The Gazette approved the consistent nomenclature in adopting the Rochester Code, believing that Britton's Flora would do much toward establishing the Code it­ self. But when the second volume appeared, Coulter questioned the "extreme views as to generic limitations." Bessey merely said, "The good opinion of the work formed from an examination of the first volume is confirmed by even a glance through the second. . . ." On July 2, 1898, Coulter wrote Coville: I have your note of June 29 in reference to the specimens of Solanum, Collinsia and Tresine. On account of the moving of the herbarium into new quarters, it had escaped my attention that those specimens were still here. My going to the University so interrupted my work in these groups that they should be returned to you at once, as there is no immediate prospects of my taking them up within a reasonable time.

This was the beginning of the end of the career of Coulter in tax­ onomy. Within a month he heard from Rose of a large plan to do a comprehensive, new monograph of Cactaceae. Coulter wrote him: 41

American Naturalist,

XXX (1896), 826.

172

John Merle Coulter

I am interested in what you say about the Cacti. I will make over to you all my right and title in the group. The Brandegees, and Tourney are both working away at it, not to mention Orcutt. These people on the desert are in a very favorable position to study the living forms, but not in so favorable a place for literature. I studied the group enough to recognize the fact that I had no business to study it any further, unless I could spend long periods of time in the field and other long periods of time in cultivating them, and still other periods of time traveling through the Cactus gardens of Europe. It is perfectly useless to try to be certain of species from dried or fragmentary ma­ terial. I am confident now that much that I published concerning them should never have been published.

Coulter, with foresight and regret, turned from taxonomy to the new subjects which had been engrossing his interest—evolution and genetics. Strategic policies in education also engrossed his attention. However, there were some matters unfinished. When the war secured Porto Rico for the United States, the proposal of a tropical station at Jamaica took on another angle. Suppose, thought Coulter, the United States Department of Agriculture establishes a station at Porto Rico. The interests of the universities and the government could be combined. Immediately he wrote Farlow: Of course, I wanted to talk over with you the trip to the tropics. My thought has been towards Porto Rico since the war secured it for us. It may be that Cuba would be even more available, but its fate does not seem to be so well fixed as that of Porto Rico. I think it is well for us to consider these two cases along with Jamaica. . . .

Two months later he wrote again: I felt confident that both New York and Washington would jump after Porto Rico. From a full account I have received concerning the Vanderbilt expedition, it seems to be for purely taxonomic purposes. . . . If Webber is sent to Porto Rico, however, it will mean a certain amount of morphological work. However, judging from his previous work, he is not apt to get after things which are very critical, and will probably confine himself to his Cycad lead. I do not see how either of these enterprises need affect our proposed trip.

Coulter and Farlow, however, did not go. Coulter arranged to go to Washington to complete the revision of North American Umbelliferae. First, proofreading on Coulter's textbook which he had been preparing for years, delayed his arrival. Second, illness invaded his home. Finally, on March 30, 1899, Coulter wrote Rose: I have yours of March 27 in reference to the Palmer set. It is a personal grievance to me that I am compelled almost every day to turn aside desirable

The First Years at Chicago

173

collections. You know that I would rather buy these than anything else. It so happens that we have no appropriation as yet for developing this division of the work. It has taken a great deal of money to equip properly for morpho­ logical and physiological work. It is our intention to take up taxonomic work soon, but I am compelled to believe that it would demand so large an outlay for collections and library to make it at all effective that we must attend to the teaching end of the business first. When we do do taxonomic work here it is my purpose to have it done merely as advanced and research work. Of course, this means few students and a large outlay.

That summer Coulter went to Hanover. In May, he had finished writing the preface to Plant Relations" a "First Book of Botany," dominated by the ecological view and containing certain of the funda­ mentals of plant physiology. Coulter's work on the National Associa­ tion and other organization committees had resulted in a decision to publish scientific works for high school students in separate sciences. Appleton and Company had employed Coulter to write for botany the series of Twentieth Century Textbooks. Coulter planned that the second book, Plant Structures,43 a "Second Book of Botany," should be dominated by morphology but since structure, function and classi­ fication were developed together in an effort to trace the evolution of the plant kingdom, in a general way physiology and ecology were also treated. Coulter believed at this time that ecology should be taught students before morphology. However, ecology was "still a mass of inchoate facts, concerning which we may be said," commented Coulter, "to be making preliminary guesses." Coulter could write on ecology for beginning students. For works contemplating advanced research, he turned to Cowles, his graduate student, now a member of the faculty. On May 10, 1898, he had written Bessey: Upon sitting down to review Pound and Clements' book44 I found that it would be impossible for me to read it with the thoroughness it demanded. Accordingly I turned it over to Dr. Cowles, who is much more competent to express an opinion upon any Ecological work. He is thoroughly familiar with all the literature of the subject and can speak to some purpose. He has brought to me his review and I regard it as well done.

In 1899 Coulter turned to Harvard for a man trained by Farlow and Thaxter to direct research in the morphology of fungi. "We do not have that group as yet professionally represented," he explained. 42 43 44

New York: D. Appleton & Co., vii and 264 pp. 206 cuts in text. D. Appleton & Co., vii and 348 pp. 289 cuts in text. Phytogeografhy of Nebraska.

174

John Merle Coulter

The turn of the century was approaching and Coulter was still loyal to Harvard. Harvard had schooled practically every man of his fac­ ulty except those which Chicago itself had trained. Already the Uni­ versity of Chicago department was noted for its work in morphology and physiology. Coulter had learned from Harvard. So had Davis. So had Barnes. The fellows were Chicago trained. And a proud group of graduates they were, for sound, ample reasons. The great Amer­ ican botanical tradition, initiated by Gray, elaborated by Goodale arid Farlow, spread over the entire continent by an eminent group of former students, had found a place in many large, important, grow­ ing institutions. And Chicago was no exception. It had not only car­ ried on the tradition. It had expanded it in the interest of a more in­ clusive science. Barnes was now a member of Chicago's faculty. The dream long held, the vision long entertained, of a great department of botany in the Middle West—a great school of botany—was being realized. Every one knew who deserved encomiums for the accomplishment. He was John Merle Coulter, a botanist now of world renown.

CHAPTER IX LEADERSHIP IN WORLD BOTANY

E A . T physiology at the turn of the century was the developing

science in botany. Ecology, now more than observational studies of plant societies, shared. So did the continuing advances made in mor­ phology. These three branches under influence of laboratory experi­ mentation became so intermingled that new tasks of differentiation confronted botanists. For example, the Gazette had to abandon its division of work by departments. "It is no longer possible for us to divide the material on the basis of subjects," wrote Coulter to Arthur, "as subjects overlap so much." A new arrangement for reviews, notes for students, and subject division had to be effected. Accordingly, all materials were sent to Chicago and there reapportioned among the enlarged members of the Gazette staff. Coulter thus added much to his own work. Again he resorted to placement of work with his faculty and students. The worry and attendant responsibility weighed heavily at times. More in demand grew Coulter's lecturing ability. In tax­ onomy the enlargement of generic boundaries or establishment of new genera often presented vexing problems. The advancing invasion of physiology in the regimen of morphology required incessant read­ justment. The growth of ecology combining field and laboratory practice demanded continuous planning. Coulter's time became much involved with directing and planning activities. He tired of teaching and when his six months' vacation was earned according to the uni­ versity's system he welcomed it and went to Washington after spend­ ing the summer at Hanover. Coulter always found relief working at systematic botany with Rose. Together they began their long con­ templated ventures of completing Umbellifers. In 1900 appeared A Synopsis of Mexican and Central American Umbelliferae1 and Monograph of North American Umbelliferae.2 These were Coulter's last taxonomic productions of importance. Later in 1909 he and Rose would add a supplement to the Mono­ graph. A few small notices would appear. For Liberty Hyde Bailey's 1

Proc. Washington A cad.. Sci., I, 111-159. 11 pis. 8 cuts in text. Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb., VII, pp. 5-256 and i-vii. 9 pis. 65 cuts. See a highly favor­ able review of this work in Plant World, IV (1901), p. 38, characterizing Coulter and Rose's work as typical of a new progressive spirit in taxonomic monographs. 2

176

John Merle Coulter

great Cyclofedia of American Horticulture he compiled portions on "Anhalonium," "Cactus," "Cereus," and "Echinocactus." Rose, how­ ever, turned to his botanical explorations in Central America and Mexico. Coulter returned to Chicago in March and took up morpho­ logical studies once again. His relations with Rose would yet continue. For many years Rose and, at times, Coville had been furnishing materials for study, sending specimens of a plant species or genus showing structures in all stages of development. To show the de­ velopment of the flower, for example, specimens would be sent demonstrative of fertilization from its earliest state to formation of the embryo. Morphology was becoming "no longer the history of an idealized type, but an account of form as correlated with function and environ­ ment."3 In 1899, an article written by Coulter, "Botany in Secondary Schools,"4 said much the same: This new standpoint does not abandon the microscope and the structures which it reveals, but it approaches them with a new purpose. Nothing can replace a general acquaintance with plant forms, for they must be known in order to illustrate the various methods of work. Nothing is simpler than to devise experiments in the laboratory to illustrate the common life-relations, and to supplement the experiments with observations in the field.

"Perhaps flowers and their clustering," said Coulter, "have been more deeply buried beneath terminology than any other plant struc­ tures, but all this is brushed aside when the life-relations are found to be pollination and seed-distribution. .. . It is found further that plants are not scattered in haphazard fashion over the surface of the earth, but are organized into definite associations or societies. A certain com­ bination of water, soil, heat, etc., determines a plant society, and in it certain plants are permitted and others forbidden. The study of these plant associations, the conditions which determine them, and the adaptations of the plants, is most interesting and important." Until 1898, and really until 1900, the department of the University of Chicago had been principally occupied with morphology and ecology. After Barnes's arrival, physiology began to develop. An official recognition came to Coulter as a morphologist. He and Campbell, also a morphologist, were elected in 1898 associate fellows 8 Volney M. Spalding, "The Rise and Progress of Ecology," Science, XVII, n.s. (Feb­ ruary 6, 1903), 204-206. 4 Journal of Affiled Microscofy, II, no. 9, pp. 489, 490.

Leadership in World Botany

177

of the botanical section of the American Academy of Arts and Sci­ ences. Coulter had also been made a member of the American Society of Naturalists. In 1898 Coulter's first group of graduate students received their degree, Doctor of Philosophy. Bray, when he had finished his studies in Germany, cabled Coulter, "What?" Coulter replied, "Texas." Bray then went to University of Texas where for two years he taught botany and established in 1899 a department of botany there. Dur­ ing his first year at Texas he finished his ecological study, "The Xerophytic Flora of Texas" receiving his Ph.D. therewith. Otis W. Caldwell's thesis was on the "Morphology of Lemna minor, with Ecological Notes." Henry Chandler Cowles was granted his degree for the unprecedented study of "The Ecological Relations of the Sand Dune Flora of Northern Indiana," a thesis which had more to do with establishing ecology as a separate science in botany than any other single work. For, from this, issued Cowles's great work, "The Physiographic Ecology of Chicago and Vicinity: A Study of the Origin, Development, and Classification of Plant Societies," pub­ lished in 1901. It related:5 Within the last few years the subject of ecology has come to find a place of more or less importance wherever botany is studied in its general aspects. The limits of the subject, however, have not been defined, nor have any at­ tempts been made to bring order out of the chaos which exists with regard to the arrangement of the subject-matter. The main purpose of the present paper is to suggest a classification of a portion of the ecological field. Whatever its limits may be, ecology is essentially a study of origins and life histories, having two well-marked phases: one phase is concerned with the origin and development of plant structures, the other with the origin and development of plant societies or formations. The plant structure side again has two aspects, one viewing organs or plant forms as a whole; the other viewing the tissues which make up the organs; the former might be called organography ecology or even organography, while the latter may be called ecological anatomy. It may be well to speak more in detail concerning the distributional phase of ecology. There are two distinct aspects here also, the one local, the other regional. Climatic factors, particularly temperature and atmospheric moisture, permit the subdivision of the earth into great zones or regions with character­ istic plant formations which extend over wide areas. . . . They correspond 5 Botanical Gazette, XXXI (January-June 1901), 73 ff. See also Cowles's "The Ecolog­ ical Relations of the Vegetation on the Sand Dunes of Lake Michigan," etc., Botanical Gazette, XXVII (January-June 1899), 95 (probably Cowles's thesis).

178

John Merle Coulter

to . . . Warming's plant societies, and the subject may be called physiographic ecology. . . . Before the appearance of Warming's ecological plant geography (War­ ming E.—Plantesamfund. Copenhagen, 1895: German edition translated by Knoblauch, Berlin, 1896) there had been no attempt to classify the plant formations of the globe in a systematic manner. Warming introduced the term plant society in place of plant formation, because of the varied use of the latter, and made variations in the water content of the soil a basis of classifica­ tion. Plant societies were divided into hydrophytes, mesophytes, and xerophytes; further than this, however, little attempt was made by Warming to subdivide the plant societies, except in the case of swamp and dune plants. . . . Since Warming's great work appeared, ecologists have in general followed his ideas and have attempted to work them out. . . .

Conway MacMillan's "Observations on the Distribution of Plants along Shore at Lake of the Woods" and Roscoe Pound and Clements's "The Phytogeography of Nebraska," already considered, were referred to as excellent treatments of the plant formations in their respective regions. It will be noticed that in one respect Cowles erred: Pound's work was based on Drude's work, not Warming's, although, of course, Warming's work was also utilized as a basis. During 1896 and 1897 Cowles, accompanied by Coulter, Davis, and students had first sought to classify the vegetation of Chicago and northern Indiana regions. In 1898 Cowles had a class of twelve students in northern Michigan—North Manitou Island, particularly. Work then extended in 1899 to Marquette, Michigan, and later into the Tennessee hills, along the Atlantic coast and to the Gulf coast of Mississippi. Eventually it would go into remote regions of the West and Florida, to Oregon and even Alaska. As a matter of fact, ecological investigation, bringing botanists in ever increasing numbers from laboratories over the entire world, would again initiate study of the floral covering of the entire world. The sphere of taxonomy and its concomitant supremacy in out-of-doors botany now was chal­ lenged. At least, it had a zealous rival for botanical affections. Obviously, what made ecology such a prominent branch of botany was physiology. Coulter, like Gray, studied physiology. He lectured in the subject. He even taught it. By 1900 physiology was not the "vegetable physiology" of Gray, nor was it that of Goodale. Prog­ ress was rapid and physiology as it grew to be a segregate in botany developed its own potentials. William D. Merrell's thesis, by which he received the Ph.D. degree in 1898, was "Contribution to the Life

Leadership in World Botany

179

History of Silphium." The study was like Coulter's "Contribution to the Life-history of Ranunculus,"8 once again the product of research work by Caldwell, Merrell, SchafFner, Chamberlain, and others. "It was felt that Ranunculus," said Coulter as he critically interpreted the results of the work, "might be of interest from a phylogenetic point of view, as representing one of the so-called 'primitive regions' of dicotyledons." This was not physiology, but morphology seeking by killing, staining, sectioning, and description the identification and in­ terpretation of structural development. The interpretation of the organs' functioning, the study of their processes in action, the inter­ play of the living organism in relation to external factors as well as its structures was a different study. Although involved, physiology allocated to itself its separable regimen of investigation. It was no longer a branch of study practically synonymous with morphology as in Gray's time. Barnes became its expositor at Chicago. MacDougal, B. M. Duggar, Albert F. Woods, C. Stuart Gager, George T. Moore, Winthrop J. V. Osterhout, Goodale's follower at Harvard and a Strasburger student, and a number of botany's most able sci­ entists gave it distinction. At the Columbus, Ohio, meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1899, Barnes delivered before Section G an address, "The Progress and Problems of Plant Physiology."7 On December 30, 1897, before the Minnesota Academy of Sciences, MacDougal had delivered a similar address, "The Province and Problems of Plant Physiology,"8 of which the Gazette commented, "It is a clear and pungent statement concerning a field of work per­ sistently misunderstood even by teachers of botany." It read: Briefly stated, plant physiology is concerned with the fundamental proper­ ties of the protoplasm of plants, and the functions of the organisms into which it is formed. It is, therefore, a study of activities and regards structures from the standpoint of efficiency or functional value, and it includes the considera­ tion of all reactions of growth, movement, metabolism, change in form, ir­ ritability and other phenomena resulting from the activity of forces internal to the plant whether set in motion by internal or external stimuli. It merges into morphology in the subjects of growth and reproduction upon the one hand, and upon the other it underlies a portion of the domain of ecology, in the con­ sideration of adaptive reactions, while with bacteriology and mycology it forms 8

Botanical Gazette, XXV (1898), 73 ff. Ibid., XXVIII (July-December 1899), 207. 8 Science, VII, n.s. (March 18, 1898), 369 ff.

7

i8o

John Merle Coulter

the basis of the study of pathology. Physiology and chemistry join in the con­ sideration of the chemical activities and products of the organism, and the principles of physics are involved in the investigation of the plant machine.

Coulter said, "Although many different kinds of work are being carried on by plants, they may all be put under two heads, nutrition and reproduction. Every plant, whether simple or complex, must care for two things: (i) its own support (nutrition), and (2) the production of other plants like itself (reproduction)."9 In his text, Plant Relations,10 Coulter grouped under the chapter on nutrition, subjects such as the significance of chlorophyll, photosynthesis (ascent of water, chloroplasts, result of photosynthesis, carbohydrates and proteids), transpiration, digestion, assimilation, respiration: To summarize the nutritive life-processes in green plants, therefore, -photo­ synthesis manufactures carbohydrates, the materials used being carbon dioxide and water, the work being done by the chloroplast with the aid of light; the manufacture of proteids uses these carbohydrates, and also substances contain­ ing nitrogen, sulphur, etc.; digestion puts the insoluble carbohydrates and the proteids into a soluble form for transfer through the plant; assimilation con­ verts this food material into the living substance of the plant, protoplasm; respiration is the oxidizing of the protoplasm which enables the plant to work, oxygen being absorbed, and carbon dioxide and water vapor being given off in the process.

The plants without chlorophyll are those which cannot manu­ facture carbohydrates and so must feed on other plants and animals. Molds, mildews, rusts, mushrooms, and the like are in this class. Coulter could state problems simply. Indeed, if any criticism attaches in this respect, at times he made problems too simple. Physiological study, therefore, required living plant material. Greenhouse as well as laboratory work came under its purview. When Barnes began his teaching at Chicago he had spent an entire summer in preparation, and was assisted by Coulter's son, John, who had stud­ ied with him as a single student in experimental physiology at Wis­ consin. Burton Edward Livingston, who like Chamberlain and Cald­ well had been a high school teacher, came to Chicago to study plant physiology. Becoming laboratory assistant, he was given the task of aiding in assembling equipment. Practically all of the apparatus had been ordered in Europe, doubtless emulating the once proud and only well-equipped experimental botanical laboratory in the United 9

Plant Relations, p. 3. O f , c i t . , p. χ j 6. The chapter referred to is Chapter X, pp. 149-157.

10

Leadership in World Botany

181

States—at Harvard under Goodale. Withal the objective was ac­ complished. Chicago had the most completely furnished laboratory for plant physiology in the United States when Barnes commenced. At first he gave to his students a typewritten mimeographed outline of laboratory exercises. He did not use the famous "A.B.C. book" nor did he use Arthur's Laboratory Exercises published in 1897 at Lafayette. He used no special book. Lectures and laboratory di­ rections constituted his course which soon became world famous. Al­ though physiology was his subject, Barnes also became interested in morphology—in special problems presented by the bryophytes. Con­ sistently he advocated restricting sex terms in botany to sexual organs. For example, before Section G meeting at Buffalo he presented a pa­ per, "Terminology of Reproduction and Reproductive Organs." Two points, not directly related, were discussed:11 The distinction between vegetative and non-sexual reproduction. The re­ production of the earliest plants was undoubtedly vegetative reproduction. Non-sexual reproduction is not fairly differentiated from it until the Bryophyta are reached, and with them a clear alternation of generation [is revealed].... The fundamental distinction lies in this, that vegetative reproduction repeats the same fhase while non-sexual reproduction gives rise to the alternate phase. The classification of sporangia and gametangia into simple and compound was suggested. . . . Simple sporangia occur below Bryophyta; compound in Bryophyta and above.

Hofmeister's great discovery of an alternation of generations in bryophytes—an alternation of a plant producing asexual spores in one generation and sexual cells in another—had proved a phenomenon for absorbing study for almost a half century. Morphologists espe­ cially had sought to describe structurally the various phases of sexual development from vegetative through nonsexual to sexual and in the process, of course, encountered the alternate phase of reproduc­ tion. In 1899 Coulter wrote on "The Origin of the Leafy Sporophyte,"12 a discussion provoked by Professor Bower's recent discussion of alternation of generations which Coulter characterized as an "ex­ ceedingly interesting and obscure problem." Coulter had always been interested in the meaning of alternation of generation. Con­ cluding by commenting on the more probable common phylogeny be11 Botanical Gazette, XXII (July-December 1896), 218 ff. Taken from an abstract ap­ proved by the author. 12 Botanical Gazette, XXVIII (July 1899), 46-59.

182

John Merle Coulter

tween angiosperms and gymnosperms than in the case of bryophyte and pteridophyte lines, Coulter observed: We have been in danger of restricting the operations of evolution too rigidly, making the lines of advance too few, and forgetting the possibilities of change during the enormous stretches of time. The polyphyletic origin of similar structures and of similar groups makes the problems of phylogeny immensely more complex, but is probably more consistent with the facts.

Nutrition or reproduction, however, were not regarded by Coulter as botany's most important problems. "The most important and most difficult problem of biology"13 to Coulter was heredity, the immense field which science had opened for exact study almost entirely during Coulter's lifetime. Since the ancients there had been philosophical speculations on the subject. Observational science during the many centuries had gathered together an amazing amount of factual knowl­ edge. Every fact, if a fact, was worth recording, said men like Volney Spalding. Real facts had been brought together as a consequence. And Darwin had elaborated an hypothesis by which hope of a final synthesis seemed justified. All science, therefore, had turned toward proving evolution, if possible. Natural selection to Coulter was the "central thought of Darwinism"14 but notice, Coulter was not satis­ fied. Once only a few years before he had said that he hoped an ex­ planation based on a single factor or factors would establish the law of development. Comparative morphology, comparative anatomy might find the answer. Phylogenetic studies of ancient and living organisms held some promise of a solution. All tended to amplify knowledge concerning evolution. But there was no certainty. Changes were being written indelibly on time's annals. No hope of a sudden and complete description of all evolutionary processes was entertained. But hope of a series of approximations which would at least give biologists surety that science was not fundamentally in error, was envisaged. Coulter hoped that by delimiting more the rigidity of restrictions placed on evolutionary concepts, demonstrable methods might be found to displace discussion. The answers were to be found in re­ search. In 1901 was published the first part of Hugo De Vries's Die Mutationstheorie. Proof of the concept of mutation—which though the exceptional case in hybridization or methods of species forma13

Evolution, Syllabus of a Course of Six Lecture-studies (University of Chicago Press,

1897), p. 13. 14

Ibid., p. χ ι .

Leadership in World Botany

183

tion—was nevertheless to increase understanding of the origin of species. Evolution, many thought, was proved. Within a short time Coulter would become acquainted with the great Dutch botanist. Science to Coulter had always been an adventure. In the years of his youth, certainty had been found in the Genesis story of creation. To him, then, the story had been literally true. But in the restless first years as a teacher of natural science at Hanover, doubt and the awareness of change during the long stretch of geologic time had given rise to knowledge of two interpretations—one the hypothesis of creation and the other evolution. He had stood by the narrative of the Bible. However, in December 1877, the Hanover College Monthly15 published a discussion by one "Calamagrostis." Was Calamagrostis Coulter? Much reliance was placed on an address by Clar­ ence King, "one of America's most eminent geologists," who had been in charge of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel and later the entire United States Geological Sur­ vey. While allowances were made for special creation by divine power and for catastrophic change, one significant conclusion made by "Cala­ magrostis" was "That during the periods of comparative quiet, the development of one species from another may have gone forward in the manner indicated by the theory of Evolution." The discussions and arguments, some bellicose and some not, between theologians and scientists must have been diligently followed by Coulter. And less than a decade had passed before the church was turning to Coul­ ter to explain the reconciliation between science and religion. In 1899 Coulter wrote for the Journal of Theology an article on "The proper use of science by the pulpit."16 This began a large number of articles on religious subjects for which Coulter became internationally known as both scientist and religionist. Religious experience was one of the deep, great adventures of his life. Late in the century he began teaching a large men's Bible class in the Sunday school of the Hyde Park Presbyterian Church, quite often occupying the pulpit. George D. Fuller, who became Cowles's assistant and later professor of plant ecology at the University of Chicago and who was also a member of Coulter's class and one of his biographers, said:17 1S I> 1T

16 III, 641-653. 54--5 6 "John Merle Coulter," Science, LXIX (February I J , 1929), no. 1781, p. 179.

184

John Merle Coulter

His was . . . an influential voice in the councils of the local church and in those of the larger organization of which it was a part. He could see no con­ flict between the truths of religion and those of science. When the teachings of theology conflicted with those of science he revised his theology but kept his religion.

Science to Coulter continued to be a great adventure. Liberty Hyde Bailey and a group of Cornell scientists had already inaugurated per­ suasions toward adequate nature study among American youths— teaching nature, scientifically, "for living and loving." From the earliest beginnings of his scientific career, Coulter was much interested in subjects such as insectivorous plants, insect-pollination of plants, and other of the more phenomenal aspects of plant study. As the observational phase of seeing on every side the wonderful perfection of nature's ways passed, and more exact observation displaced it, Coulter's interest in botany and nature study increased rather than diminished. Like Bailey and Bessey, Coulter wanted the f lants stud­ ied, and in the early years of development. He wanted the child to learn and grow with knowledge of his environment, including ability to see, understand, and love the commonplace things about him. Not the trivial but the fundamental and even the exceptional. In the discernment of natural processes lay realization of intellectual, and doubtless, healthy emotional values. Coulter was not the born nat­ uralist that Bailey and Bessey were. He did not have the poetic in­ sight of Bailey nor was he as much a disciple of Agassiz in nature study, although he believed sincerely in studying nature, not books, to learn of nature. Coulter saw values as a university man and con­ sistently pleaded for original, creative, and imaginative work in the secondary schools. He was not an agriculturist or horticulturist. He was not a man of the garden primarily. He was a botanist who saw the science from field, office, and laboratory. Object study as well as knowledge of the basic workings of nature were emphasized, but more as an intellectual scholar. In a sense, Coulter's natural world was more that revealed by the microscope. Bailey protested against "thin sentimentalism," but he knew that truth was not sacrificed by use of allegories, figures of speech, and parables to lure youth into zealous desire to learn everything there was to know of any one subject. He had begun as a child of four years of age to study nature directly, in the field and woods, often

Leadership in World Botany

185

companioned by Indians. A truthful understanding, a love, of nature were rights granted every man. As increased understanding devel­ oped increased knowledge, scholarship came as an attribute. Bailey, as a research scientist, did most of his work in the garden and green­ house. As a taxonomist in research, he was both botanist and horti­ culturist. His unique poetic attitude centered about nature itself. Coul­ ter, on the other hand, was both scientist and religionist. Without in the slightest imputing irreligion to Bailey, for he more than once affirmed a confident belief in God, Coulter may be said to have been more a man of the church. And the things of earth and realism were as much in his experience and learning as unfathomable yearnings to­ ward attainments of the ideal were. Gray had led him into a wider understanding of insectivorous plants and their significance. For example, after Coulter's first sum­ mer of study at Harvard, Gray sent the Gazette his observations on the "cruel behavior" of Mentzelia ornata in beheading flies, calling at the same time for investigation to learn whether the charge was well founded.18 Coulter himself had been much impressed with the pos­ sibilities of teaching simple experimentation. That same year he had written for the Gazette a short notice on "Starch in Chlorophyll :"19 It is very easy to prove the existence of starch in chlorophyll. Let the green color be destroyed by immersion in alcohol, or by any other bleaching process; then soak the specimens a few moments in Potassium Hydrate to destroy the protoplasm. Testing with iodine the chlorophyll grains immediately assume the characteristic blue tint of starch, especially in the guard [ian] cells of the stomata. Such a neat experiment, having so much bearing on the question of assimilation, should be performed by every botanist interested in vegetable physiology.

Coulter liked to tell things beautifully. He could see human virtues displayed and taught by nature. But plant life was seldom, if ever, personified. In his lectures he often incorporated the wealth of nature adventure stories which he gathered over the years of study. As evo­ lution became more and more a certainty in observation, he used such illustrative material as he found appropriate. For example—to il­ lustrate his picturesque description—in explaining the discharge of spores by mosses, wherein the spore case opens by pushing off a lid at the apex and exposes a fringe of teeth which bend in and out in the 18

Botanical Gazette·, IV (October 1879), no. io, pp. 213-214. (August 1879), no. 8, p. 194..

19 Ibid.

186

John Merle Coulter

process, Coulter said they swing out like the skirts of a ballet dancer. He delighted in explaining self-pollination of Yucca by the little moth Pronuba. In the instance of Yucca the flower is pollinated and seeds formed to nourish the moth larvae which, maturing, bore their way through the capsule wall. In figs, however, a different situation prevails. The moth does not carry pollen but goes into the ovule and dies. Coulter laughed when asked what becomes of the moth. "I guess we eat it," he said. He, said his students, could make anything graphic, entertaining, and interesting. His was a rare facility for ex­ pression. And to him nature was filled with wonders, wonders of rare beauty and interest. In a scientific world where astronomy was still a geography of the heavens, geology still a structural geography of the earth, chemistry still a learning of elements and in considerable part simple compounds, botany was keeping pace though in some branches—physiology, particularly—it lagged. Subjects such as ecol­ ogy and taxonomy, under impetus of new government biological surveys, demonstrated the need of nature study based on ordered scientific knowledge if for no other reason than preparation for more advanced studies being gradually introduced into secondary schools. Chaos was rife in most systematic efforts toward effective nature study. Coulter's article on "Plant Societies,"20 dealing largely with "drought societies" introductory as it was to more searching examina­ tions of water relations in plants, was typical of the way in which he believed in fostering nature study, a simple, not bookish, yet scientific explanation of the basic workings of nature and direct observation of its phenomena. He elaborated his views in "Nature Study and Intel­ lectual Culture."21 The subject of plant adaptations to unusual con­ ditions of environment—teleology, on which Gray long pondered— was to undergo amazing revisions at the hands of research. Coulter's position at this time, however, was that the "lasting effects of en­ vironment upon plants offers one of the most interesting and sug­ gestive fields of study." Coulter's books, Plant Relations and Plant Structures·, made mon­ ey. Within two years Plant Relations went into a second edition for which Coulter changed only the chapters relating to plant societies. This was especially necessary for the mesophyte and halophyte so20 gl

Pratt Institute Monthly , V I I ( 1 8 9 9 ) , 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 · Science, II (1896), 4, pp. 740-744.

Leadership in World Botany

187

cieties. Coulter wrote that these changes had "been made necessary by the recent rapid development of the subject, by a larger field ex­ perience, and by the availability of more suitable illustrations."22 Within five years Plant Structures also went into a second edition. iiDuring the last five years," said Coulter, "the science of Botany has made rapid progress, both in the addition of new facts and in changed points of view. Some of this progress affects Plant Structures,"23 and so the work was completely rewritten. Plants, A Textbook of Botany24 and An Analytical Key to Some of the Common, Wild and Cultivated Species of Flowering Plants25 appeared in 1900. Need for a book combining ecology and morphology in shorter space brought forth Plant Studies An Elementary Botany.26 Illustrations, in part, had been supplied by Caldwell. At first Coulter selected Chamberlain to edit the new edition of the outmoded "A.B.C. book," but, among other matters, Chamberlain being busy preparing his own Methods in Plant Histology,27 an outgrowth of courses conducted by him at Chicago involving laboratory techniques, Coulter called on Caldwell and wrote Arthur: You remember that we arranged at some time within the last year or two to have Dr. Chamberlain rewrite and so bring up to date our u Handbook of Plant Dissection." It has turned out now that it will be impossible for Cham­ berlain to undertake the work, owing to his absence in Europe, and to other work that presses on him. In canvassing the matter Barnes and I have thought that the best man to do this is Dr. 0. W. Caldwell, who had charge of our elementary morphology work here for a number of years. He is a remarkably successful laboratory man and is now in charge of such work at the state normal school at Charleston, Illinois. He is the best teacher of elementary morphology we have had. I think he would do a far better job even than Chamberlain. If you will consent to this arrangement we can have the con­ tract made out in his name instead of in that of Dr. Chamberlain. Of course to carry this into effect it will take our three signatures. The publishers also expect the old authors to prepare and sign a Preface, testifying to the organic connection between the new edition and the old one. 22

See Preface to Revised Edition, p. vii. See Preface to Revised Edition, p. vii; see review in the Gazette, XXXVIII (1904), p. 305, where was told, such subjects as mycorhiza, the development of the sporophyte of bryophytes, and the endosperm of angiosperms have been rewritten, and the topic of "double fertilization" introduced. 24 New York: D. Appleton & Co., xxiv and 612 pp. 25 D. Appleton & Co., published 1904, copyright 1900, ν and 93 pp. 26 Appleton & Co., ix and 392 pp. 27 University of Chicago Press, 1901, vi and 159 pp. Based on a series of articles first published in Journal of Afflied Microscofy. Revised and rewritten in 1905 with several important new chapters dealing with microtechniques. 23

ι88

John Merle Coulter

In 1902 Caldwell published A Laboratory Manual of Botany z s concerned with ecology, physiology, and morphology, and Coulter reviewed this for the Gazette. In 1904 arrived the Handbook of Plant Morfhology,29 the modernized "A.B.C. book." As Caldwell had had the laboratory in elementary morphology, so Chamberlain had had the laboratory in advanced studies of the subject. Chamberlain had studied not only with Davis and Coulter the lower and higher plants but he had also taken courses under the ablest of laboratory technicians—students of microscopic technique— in the university. Coulter had encouraged Chamberlain to gather life history studies, for examples, in asters and willows, and realizing his capabilities as a microtechnician made good use of them. For Coulter was not a laboratory man in experimentation but a taxonomist, becom­ ing more and more primarily a morphologist. Chamberlain, while not a taxonomist, was a most remarkable technician. Their collaboration was one of the great botanical partnerships in the history of North American botany. Chamberlain's invention of a microtome using a fine safety razor blade preceded the contribution made by another remark­ ably able microtechnician and student at Chicago during this period— William Jesse Goad Land. The latter's was a contribution of a micro­ tome manufactured by one of the best lens companies which it is said drove similar instruments from the field. Together Coulter and Chamberlain began producing the great life history studies which made them world famous. Early in the century appeared the first part of a large treatise on seed plants, Morfhology of Sfermatofhytes, Gymnosf erms, and this was reviewed in the Gazette by Ed­ ward C. Jeffrey, one of America's great morphologists and in large part responsible for the development of phylogeny as a new phase of plant anatomy: . . . the present volume grew out of a course of lectures, accompanied by laboratory work, and it shows throughout a command of the most recent literature and a knowledge at first hand of all the morphological facts which may be investigated in a well equipped laboratory in the temperate region of the United States. It presents original views in regard to morphological termi­ nology and phylogeny. . . . The present admirable volume is indispensable to every botanist. . . .30 29 Appleton, 1902, χ and 107 pp. New York: Holt & Co., viii and 190 pp. Botanical Gazette, XXXI (January-July 1901), 355. The main work published in New York by D. Appleton & Co., χ and 188 pp. 106 cuts.

28 30

Leadership in World Botany

189

In 1903 was added the second part, Morfhology of Angiosferms^ and of this the Gazette commented: This book, which follows the one on gymnosperms by the same authors, seems a successful accomplishment of the authors' expressed purpose, "to organize the vast amount of scattered material so that it may be available in compact and related form." The want of such a book has long been felt by teachers, and several of the recently published accounts of research in the group make it evident that such a summing up of the facts and literature of the subject has been needed by investigators.31

While Coulter and Chamberlain were preparing these works, they noticed the comparatively small amount of material on cycads. Cham­ berlain, therefore, while in Europe, told Carson in Strasburger's labo­ ratory that he believed he would study cycads. Carson replied, "Well, they grow in your backyard, Mexico." Chamberlain, returning to America, secured a grant from the Botanical Society of America under a procedure recently adopted and, obtaining also President Harper's recommendation, went to Mexico to gather certain live plants and material suitable for morphological study in Mexican cycads, that is, material for study in both physiology and morphology. The governor to whom he went required him to examine and report on Mexican schools and, this done, he placed at Chamberlain's disposal a private train and escort to accompany him to a region where Chamberlain gathered abundantly. In March 1903, Coulter and Chamberlain published "The Embryogeny of Zamia"32 in which they included significant conclusions: It would seem . . . that the embryogeny of Ginkgo is the most primitive one among gymnosperms; that the embryogeny of Cycas is more primitive than that of Zamia; that in its embryogeny Zamia approaches more nearly the Coniferales than does Cycas; that such forms as Taxus, Cephalotaxus, Podocarpus, Taxodium, and Thuja show progressive stages of embryogeny from that of Zamia toward that of Pinus; that Ephedra has the most primitive embryogeny among the Gnetales; and that Gnetum and Tumboa resemble the angiosperms in the elimination of free nuclear division from their embryog­ eny.

In the course of this investigation the authors had discovered that "knowledge of the development of the embryo of Cycadales [was] very meager." A few works, among them, Webber's, were all the • 31

Botanical Gazette, XXXVI (July-December 1903), 309. The main work published in New York by D. Appleton & Co., χ and 34.8 pp. 113 cuts. 32 Botanical Gazette, XXXV (March 1903), 192-193.

190

John Merle Coulter

literature obtainable. But by 1904 contributions amplifying knowl­ edge of gymnosperms had "accumulated remarkably." Coulter said, "In 1901 the reviewer had occasion to bring together the literature of the group in his preparation of the Morfhology of gymnosferms . . . but the record of that volume is very scanty in comparison with the material now available. This focusing of attention has not been along morphological lines alone, but has included the work of anatomists and paleobotanists as well. The initial part of a series of papers deal­ ing with the comparative anatomy and phylogeny of the Coniferales by E. C. Jeffrey (Part I. The genus Sequoia, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 5: 441-59, pis. 58-71. 1903) has just made its appearance, and promises to be of great service in connection with the phylogeny of a group whose relationships are very obscure.. . ."33 Coulter had heard of the work of Jeffrey some time before. When a former student of his at Toronto, M. A. Chrysler, had applied to the University of Chicago for a fellowship, Coulter had granted it. Between the time of Jeffrey's review of Coulter and Chamberlain's work on the morphology of gymnosperms and the publication of the Coniferales series of papers dealing with comparative anatomy and phylogeny, Jeffrey had gone to Harvard. Coulter had believed that De Bary's comparative anatomy studies were the last word on the sub­ ject. But Jeffrey was developing a modern system of plant anatomy. In the early years of enlargement in the science, Gray had divided botany into two primary divisions: the systematic and the theoretical or experimental. Anatomy, as then conceived, was a study of cells and tissues. Cells were, in turn, divided into studies of cell walls, or­ gan structures, and cell contents, studies of nutrition and other life processes.31 With progressive differentiations and segregation of sub­ ject matter, cytology took over much of cell wall examination and physiology invaded the study of cell contents. Morphology also figured in the invasions, although it remained a study of evolutionary development as manifested by structures both external and internal. The work was somewhat analogous to skeletal studies in animal paleontology and the question was raised as to whether such a system was complete. Jeffrey said that the woody system of plants must also 33

Ibid., XXXVII, 402. See, for example, "Anatomy as a Special Department of Botany" by Emily L. Gregory, read before American Association meeting, Rochester, 1892, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, XX (March 15, 1893), 104. 84

Leadership in World Botany

191

be studied. It was argued that the outside of a plant shows for the most part where it has been; the inside shows now what it is. Anat­ omy, with physiology, had been receiving special notices in the Ga­ zette jince about 1893. Anatomy was the study of the bricks of which the house was built. A new anatomy began to revolutionize morphol­ ogyLand had sensed the value of plant anatomy, had realized that the study of the vascular system of plants was a new thing and very much alive. Although Chrysler and Land were his students, Coulter had begun to learn from them. A third of the advanced courses in morphology was soon being given to anatomy. Long since, Coulter had studied the reproductive organs. His interest in the vegetative structures was growing. With Chrysler in 1904 he published "Re­ generation in Zamia,"35 dealing with the plant's power to produce new shoots and roots after mutilation which are more than adventi­ tious sprouting instances "of direct restoration of lost parts." Anat­ omy provided the means of establishing relations of the large groups based on new structures. Taxonomy divided plants according to or­ ders, groups, genera, and species. Morphology as developed, and with the aid of anatomy, could build on its materials and still further study out the large relations between plant groups. Paleobotany would be summoned more and an experimental morphology would evolve. Coulter described the development later:36 This more recent morphology adds to the old knowledge of structures the relation of these structures in a scheme of phylogeny. Its importance lies not so much in the fact that it solves the perennial problem of phylogeny, as in the fact that it calls for the selection and comparison of structures throughout the plant kingdom. It takes the enormous debris of material that has accumu­ lated and sifts it, passing over the trivial, emphasizes the important, and [builds] up the body of knowledge into a structure that has some form. . . . In the decade we are considering there has come into the morphological camp a powerful ally. For convenience, we speak of it as vascular anatomy; but it is the application of the spirit of the new morphology, the evolutionary morphology, to the vascular system of plants. Before this reenforcement the modern morphology was dealing almost exclusively with the reproductive struc­ tures: sporangia and sex organs, with their associated structures. It had pressed 35

Botanical Gazette, XXXlX (December 1904.), 452-458. "Recent Advances in Vascular Anatomy," American Naturalist, XLIII (April 1909), 219 S. Paper read at the Baltimore meeting of the Botanical Society of America. To this is added as Part II, "The Progress of Plant Anatomy During the Past Decade," by Edward C. Jeffrey, another paper, found at pages 230-237. 36

192

John Merle Coulter

these structures to the limit of technique, developing morphological cytology. With the vascular system brought into the morphological perspective, the first step was taken toward the inclusion of vegetative as well as reproductive struc­ tures. It now remains for some one to begin the organization of the remain­ ing vegetative regions upon the same basis; and then morphology will have its facts fairly before it. . . . The organization of vascular anatomy upon an evolutionary basis came at a most auspicious time, for the phylogenetic lines, guarded only by the anatomy of reproductive structures, had begun to show signs of wavering. Wider re­ searches had begun to dissipate rigid categories into mists. Such veterans of definition as archesporium, sporangium, sporophyll, etc., had been put to flight. Especially did experimental morphology play havoc. It made hereditary struc­ tures lose their rigidity. . . . It certainly intensified the conviction that any structure might arise any number of times. This made schemes of phylogeny essentially paper schemes. They were good illustrations of what the phylo­ genetic succession might have been, but they could carry no assurance of what the phylogenetic succession actually had been. . . .

In 1900 Arthur retired as an editor of the Gazette. Inability to perform increasing editorial work was the reason although he felt that the old "mutual sympathy and comaraderie" had gone. Coulter reminded Arthur that the Gazette was no longer their publication but the university's and that the new events did "not imply the slightest diminution in the warm feeling that should exist between us." Coul­ ter urged: If you feel that you cannot continue as an editor with a good deal of drudgery put upon you in consequence, Barnes and I would insist that you at least permit your name to be retained at the head of the associate editors, and so continue your connection in a relation as close and intimate as you are able to maintain.

Arthur married Emily Stiles Potter of Lafayette in June 1901 and then went to Geneva, Switzerland, on their honeymoon, being pres­ ent at the founding of the Association Internationale des Botanistes. In 1905 he again went abroad as a delegate to the Vienna Botanical Congress. At the Denver meeting of the Botanical Society of America Arthur was elected president, the year that Dr. Robinson retired from the office. In 1902 Barnes, who had been carrying "the lion's share" of Gazette responsibilities, went to Europe. The following year Coulter and members of his family went also. He had earned the trip. In the summer of 1901 Coulter and his family planned to "spend the summer in a cottage at Winona" [Indiana], which he explained to Rose, "is only three hours away, and I intend to run back and forth

Leadership in World Botany

193

to my laboratory quite frequently." Winona was near Chicago and be­ ing the location of an inland biological station, closely associated with the University of Indiana, it was a favorite summer place. Moreover, from 1895 to 1898, Coulter had had an affiliation with a summer educational project there. Most of the summer of 1902 was spent at Chicago. Consequently, in 1903, after visiting Bessey in April and a return to Chicago where he was honor guest at a banquet, Coulter went across the Atlantic to study on the ground the work of famous botanists whose productions he knew. He was also to meet European associate editors of the Gazette. Paris, Berlin, Dresden, Bonn, and many other places were included in his itinerary. While there, in the course of his nine months' journey, he met Hugo De Vries. And months were given to intensive study. After his return, Coulter addressed the fiftieth Convocation of the University of Chicago March 22, 1904 on "The Contribution of Ger­ many to Higher Education."37 That year De Vries came to America at the instance of the Carnegie Institution of Washington to give the opening address dedicating the Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. On June 6, Coulter circulated among American botanists an extraordinary invitation, announcing a course of lectures to be given by De Vries at the University of Chi­ cago, together with lectures by other distinguished scholars: Η. H. Turner of Oxford University} John P. Mahaffy of Trinity College, Dublinj and Eugen Phillippovich of Vienna. On September 12, Coulter wrote George H. Shull:' We have been having a great time with foreign botanists. First there was Wiesner of Vienna; then, as you know, two weeks of De Vries; then Goebel was with us; today Bower comes to stay the rest of the week with me; & on Saturday Drude gets here.

It was an elaborate American scientific celebration, aimed in part to acquaint De Vries with American biologists and advanced students of the Middle West. On September 2, at the fifty-second University Convocation held in Leon Mandel assembly hall, Coulter introduced De Vries:38 No claim of the biologist has invited more general attention than the doc­ trine of evolution; and perhaps no claim has been more thoroughly and per37 38

University Record, VIII (March 1904), 348 fi. University Record, IX (October 1904), no. 6, pp. 201-207.

John Merle Coulter sistently misunderstood. In every case the few great leaders who have made substantial contributions to this doctrine have been misrepresented by rash followers, and the intelligent public has been led to believe in a larger claim than the facts justify. It is a rare privilege to come into personal contact with one of these great leaders, and to learn from his cautious utterances the real scientific attitude toward so important a generalization. From the very beginning of his scientific career, the work of Professor DeVries has had to do with the most fundamental problems. There were pioneer studies in the physics of the plant cell; later an elaborate theory con­ cerning the physical basis of heredity; and now a theory of evolution. For nearly twenty years Professor DeVries has been quietly conducting ex­ periments relating to evolution, meeting difficulties at every point and per­ sistently overcoming them. Series of years to him have been as series of days to the ordinary investigator; and the interruption of his main investigation for several years in order that a method might be perfected has been re­ garded as merely an incident in the experiment. As a result, his mutation theory of the origin of species was announced in 1901 fully matured, based upon an enormous array of facts. Even if the mutation theory proves not to be of general application, Pro­ fessor DeVries in connection with it has done two things of incalculable benefit to biological science: he has demonstrated the method and the spirit necessary in reaching important results; and he has brought the great problem of the origin of species within the field of direct experiment. . . . The method must be regarded as epoch-making in biology. . . .

De Vries explained that the ideas to which he had "been con­ ducted by [his] experiments [were] to a large degree different from current scientific belief." He would have liked to recount "the obligation which the doctrine of evolution is under to such men as Lamarck and Darwin [who] have freed inquiry from prejudice and drawn the limits between religion and science; how they have caused the principle of evolution to be the ruling idea in the whole dominion of the study of the organic world [being] the means of innumerable discoveries, and whole sciences have been started from it." But he launched into the main thread of his discourse: In one subordinate point my results have been different from those of Dar­ win, and it is this point which I have been invited, by the kindness of your President, to discuss before you. Darwin's theory is commonly indicated as the theory of natural selection. This theory is not the theory of descent. The idea of descent with modifica­ tion, which now is the basis of all evolutionary science, is quite independent of the question as to how in the single instances the change of one species into another has actually taken place. The theory of descent remains unshaken even if our conception concerning the mode of descent should prove to be in need of revision.

Leadership in World Botany

195

Such a revision seems now to be unavoidable. In Darwin's time little was known concerning the process of variability. It was impossible to make the necessary distinctions. His genius recognized two contrasting elements: one of them he called sports, since they came rarely, unexpectedly, and suddenly: the other he designated as individual differences, conveying thereby the no­ tion of their presence in all individuals and at all times, but in variable degrees. Sports are accidental changes, resulting from unknown causes. In agri­ cultural and horticultural practice they play a large part, and whenever they occur in a useful direction, they are singled out by breeders and become the sources of new races and new varieties. Individual differences are always pres­ ent, no two persons being exactly alike. . . . Many highly improved races of forage plants and agricultural crops have been produced by intelligent breed­ ers simply on the ground of these always available dissimilarities. They can be selected and accumulated, augmented and heaped up, until the new race is distinctly preferable to the original strain. In ordinary agricultural breeding, however, it is very difficult to distinguish sharply between these two principles. Moreover, for practical purposes, this distinction has no definite use. The practice of selection is nearly the same in both cases, and, besides hybridizing, with which we are not now concerned, selection is as yet practically the only means for the breeder to improve his races. Hence it came that at Darwin's time there was no clear distinction be­ tween the two types of variations, at least not to such an extent that a theory of the origin of species could confidently rely upon it.

Considering how Quetelet's celebrated law of variability, based as it were on a law of probabilities, explained degrees, but not the origin of new peculiarities and that "the degrees of deviation are subject to reversion to mediocrity, always more or less returning in the progeny to the previous state," De Vries continued with an elabo­ ration of what constitutes a new species. Species to be species, said the great Dutch botanist, must be constant and not recessive. They are not distinguished "from their allies by quantities, nor by degrees; the very qualities may differ. The higher animals and plants are not only taller and heavier than their long-forgotten unicellular fore­ fathers; they surpass them in large numbers of special characters, which must have been acquired by their ancestors in the lapse of time. How such characters have been brought about is the real question with which the theory of evolution is concerned. Now, if they cannot be explained by the slow and gradual accumulation of individual variations, evidently the second alternative of Darwin's original prop­ osition remains. This was based on the sports. . . ." But resort to such an explanation was not necessary. Two vast dominions of variability were susceptible of observation—one based on the law of probabili-

196

John Merle Coulter

ties, the other based on writings even before Darwin's time, of "muta­ tions" which were "the sudden and accidental changes of species into one another." The author then explained why and how he had set about to prove this, and most important of all, the results. His method had been "direct experimental inquiry." He had begun a search for the "sharp and clear" mutations "of rare occurrence": Fortune has been propitious to me. It has brought into my garden a series of mutations of the same kind as those which are known to occur in horticul­ ture, and, moreover, it has afforded me an instance of mutability such as would be supposed to occur in nature. The sudden changes, which until yet were limited to the experience of the breeders, proved to be accessible to direct ex­ perimental work. They cannot yet in truth be produced artificially, but, on the other hand, their occurrence can be predicted in some cases with enough prob­ ability to justify the trial. Color changes in flowers, double flowers, regular forms from labiate types, and others have been produced more or less at will in my garden, and under conditions which allowed of a close scientific study. The suddenness of the changes and the perfection of the display of the new characters from the very beginning were the most striking results. These facts, however, only gave an experimental proof of phenomena which were historically known to occur in horticulture. They threw light upon the way in which cultivated plants usually produce new forms, but between them and the real origin of species in nature the old gap evidently remained. This gap, however, had to be filled out. Darwin's theory had concluded with an analogy, and this analogy had to be replaced by direct observation. Success has attended my efforts even on this point. There has come into my hands a species which has been taken in the very act of producing new forms. This species has now been observed in its wild locality during eighteen years, and it has steadily continued to repeat the phenomenon. I have brought it into my garden, and here, under my very eyes, the production of new species has been going on, rather increasing in rate than diminishing. At once it rendered superfluous all considerations and all more or less fantastical explanations, re­ placing them by simple fact. It opened the way for further investigations, giv­ ing nearly certainty of a future discovery of analogous processes. Whether it is the type of the production of species in nature, or only one of a more or less large group of types, cannot yet be decided, but this is of no importance in the present state of the subject. The fact is that it has become possible to see species originate, and that this origin is sudden and obeys distinct laws. The species which yielded these important results is an American plant. It is a native of the United States, and nearly allied to some of the most common and most beautiful among the wild flowering plants of this country. It is an evening primrose, and by a strange but fortunate coincidence bears the name of the great French founder of the theory of evolution. It is called "Lamarck's evening primrose," and produces crowns of large and bright yellow flowers. . . .

De Vries concluded by inviting investigations of a similar nature "here and there." His invitation was accepted. Only a short time

Leadership in World Botany

197

passed before science was able to produce a number of other instances of plant mutations. The era of pure and practical science was in all points begun. And in this Coulter would largely share. The University of Chicago conferred on De Vries at this time the degree LL.D. Columbia University had also conferred on him the honorary Sc.D. degree. Before arriving at Chicago, De Vries had gone by way of Tucson, Arizona, to California and returned over a northern route. A course of lectures delivered at the University of California was later edited by Daniel T. MacDougal and published under the title Species and Varieties: their Origin by Mutation.39 Dr. Cowles reviewed for the Gazette both Die Mutationstheorieia and Sfecies and Varieties. At first Cowles said, "It is much too early, of course, to venture a final opinion as to the true value of this work. That it is one of the greatest of all contributions to the literature of evolution is certain. That it will lead to a flood of experimental in­ vestigation is assured, and perhaps this will be the author's greatest service to the world." However, by the time of the publication of Sfecies and Varieties, Cowles, more confidently believing it an epochmaking work, affirmed the "universal testimony" that De Vries had without doubt made the greatest contribution since Darwin. MacDougal's experiments amplifying De Vries's work, and con­ ducted in large part in his new capacity as director of the botanical laboratories at the New York Botanical Garden, had done much to elaborate the hypothesis. More probably than any single individual in America, he, with numerous articles and contributions, had made the great botanist's work known in America. At the fortieth anni­ versary of the presentation by Darwin and Wallace of the origin of species thesis, MacDougal had read before the Linnean Society his study of the relation of foliage leaf growth and the chlorophyll func­ tion. Coulter noted, "The main purpose of the investigations was to determine the extent to which leaves are dependent upon food sup­ plies constructed within their own tissues, and to what extent develop­ ment may proceed at the expense of food stored in neighboring or originally connected members. . . . In general, they were all studies 39

Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., xviii and 847 pp., 1905. Botanical Gazette., XXXIII (January-June 1902), 236. Volume II of De Vries's work appeared in 1903. See important review of his work and "Species and Varieties" in Plant World, VIII, 86, no, 13J, 150, by C. S. G. (C. S. Gager). 40

198

John Merle Coulter as to the effect of an atmosphere free from CO2, and the effect of darkness."41 In 1903 appeared MacDougal's notable monograph on "The influence of light and darkness upon growth and development," a careful examination, Arthur said, of the whole subj ect, having also observations on a "series of plants of wide relationship and diverse habits."42 These were but two of MacDougal's abundant studies of this pe­ riod. An explorer of some distinction, a lecturer at Woods Hole, an experimenter of growing prominence, an author of both a laboratory manual and two pioneer texts in plant physiology, MacDougal's work was largely responsible for bringing the New York Botanical Garden into prominence as a world institution of botany. Together with Britton's prominence as a systematist, and the ever-expanding program maintained by the Garden in the west, the central-southern and southern states, the West Indies, Cuba, Central and South America, and many other places north, and east, in botanical exploration, the New York Botanical Garden entered upon one of the most flourishing periods of development known to any single institution in botany in the world. Britton's Manual of the Flora of the Northern States and Canada appearing in 1901 was reviewed by Coulter as a book long awaited for, which put "into sharp contrast the two extreme views concerning species and nomenclature"13 and which would soon be known as "Britton's ManmP as opposed to "Gray's Manual." As important as Britton's works were, they maintained a distinction different from that earned by MacDougal in publicizing De Vries's work. American botany owes much to MacDougal, not only as a pioneer plant physiologist,44 but as the establisher of a small experi­ mental garden in the Bronx, similar to that of De Vries at Amster­ dam, the first of its kind in America, and worked as early as 1902. Before the Barnard Botanical Club of Columbia University, on De­ cember 18, 1905, MacDougal made his remarkable announcement of finding successfully a method believed able to alter inheritance in plants, thereby inducing mutation by means of experimental treat41 Botanical Gazette, XXIII (January-June 1897), 60. See also XXII (July-December 1896), 192. 42 Botanical Gazette., XXV (January-June 1903), 292. 43 Ibid., XXXII (July-December 1901), 426. 44 George T. Moore, C. Stuart Gager, and Forrest Shreve, "Daniel Trembley MacDougal," Plant Physiology, XIV (April 1939), no. 2, pp. 191-202.

Leadership in World Botany

199

ments of plant ovaries. At this time MacDougal pointed out, "agen­ cies external to the cell may induce mutations, and consequently exert a profound influence on heredity." The Gazette, noticing the first public announcement made by MacDougal "of important results of his own researches on the causes of mutation" commented: While not denying the possibility of other means of production of species, he holds that hybridization and mutation are the only demonstrated methods by which new species have arisen.45

MacDougal had been led by a note of Darwin concerning some "fool experiments" injecting chemicals into leaves with the idea of bringing about morphological changes. Consequently, "equally crude but successful attempts to modify egg cells by injecting zinc salts into pistils"46 were made in 1905. He later explained that while experi­ menting with mutants of Oenothera confirmatory of De Vries's stud­ ies, he conceived the idea that agencies of any kind which might affect the processes of the protoplasts con­ cerned directly in the development of the embryo sac and the differentiation of the egg, and which inhibited or altered the reaction velocities of any process, whether catalytic or otherwise, might cause some alterations in the characters transmitted to the progeny arising from fertilizations into which had entered elements affected in this way.47

Accordingly, two plants had been chosen for the first trial—a spe­ cies of Oenothera and a species of Raimannia, native to Patagonia. It was believed that evidence of the influence of environment on the germ plasm and soma and their inheritance would be obtained. So, solutions of electrolytes were injected. Two phases were considered: (1) demonstration of induced hereditary alterations and study of their behavior in pedigreed strains in hybridization, (2) the mecha­ nism by which environic agencies or agency affects physical bearers of heredity. The results of these studies, which aroused much sub­ sequent investigation and discussion, were published by the Botanical Gazette, of course after sufficient years had elapsed to develop their results over periods of several successive generations in plant life. Within a year Species and Varieties, De Vries's California lectures, went into a second edition. While in California, De Vries visited 45 46

Botanical Gazette, XLI (January-June 1906), 357. D. T. MacDougal, "Trends in Plant Science," Scientific Monthly, LII (June 1941),

49°· 47 D. T. MacDougal, "Alterations in Heredity Induced by Ovarial Treatments," Bo­ tanical Gazette, LI (1911), 241 fi.

200

John Merle Coulter

Luther Burbank, the most noted of American hybridists. An account issued from their meeting, which Barnes characterized as "the first statement we have seen addressed to scientific men by a man com­ petent to appreciate both the practical and scientific aspects of Burbank's work."48 In the course of his visits to America, De Vries visited a number of the various agricultural and experimental American labo­ ratories. In his Chicago address, he had said, ". . . I should like to sketch the part which of late the scientists of the United States have taken in this work. Mainly in two lines a rapid advancement has been inaugurated in this country. I refer to the pure university studies and the work of the agricultural stations. Highly valuable is the applica­ tion of science to agriculture in the improvement of races."49 De Vries's work became the subject of numerous symposiums on the part of great American scientific organizations. As MacDougal described it: Phylogeny, evolution, and heredity were so vivified that researches were started in a hundred laboratories, and a dozen new journals [became] neces­ sary for the publication of results.50

At the Universal Exposition, meeting in St. Louis in 1904, De Vries spoke before the Congress of Arts and Science on "A Compari­ son between Artificial and Natural Selection." At this same congress Coulter gave his most able address on "Development of Morpho­ logical Conceptions." Tracing the development of modern morphol­ ogy from Hofmeister through Darwin to the present phase when the problem of the origin of species had been put on an experimental basis, Coulter considered three historical phases in morphological de­ velopment: that of the mature organ, that of the structure of the de­ veloping organ, and that of the influence of changing conditions upon the development of the organ, and, concluding that the fundamental unity of the science, in fact, all biological science, was being increas­ ingly made known, enunciated this interesting figure: The history of botany, beginning with taxonomy, has been a history that began with the tips of the branches and has proceeded in converging lines towards the common trunk. . . .51 48 Botanical Gazette, XLIII (January-June 1907), 142. The account was De Vries's "Die Neuzuchtungen Luther Burbank's," Biol. Centralbl. XXVI, 609-621. 4 9 O f . c i t . , p. 203. 50 D. T. MacDougal, "A Half Century of Plant Physiology," Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, XIX (1932), 31-43 at p. 35. 51 Science, n.s., XX (1904.), 617-624. See also International Congress of Arts and

Leadership in World Botany

201

Botany's history has been a progressive study from outward ap­ pearances towards the fundamental, "from the behavior of a plant or­ gan to the behavior of protoplasm," from the morphology of Goethe confined principally to flowering plants with every plant referred to root, leaf, or stem, to that of the "new botany" which surveyed gen­ erally the entire plant kingdom including the nonflowering and in­ vestigated factually both reproductive and vegetative structures. Bot­ any now was gradually passing from a condition in which Coulter stated that many students knew about sporangia, archegonia, embryo sac, and the like, but little about structures of leaves and stems and roots.52 Coulter launched a new plea for another experimental morphology. "In its incipient stage it is known as ecological anatomy," he said: plant anatomy . . . not well differentiated from plant morphology among the lower groups, has developed a very distinct field of its own among vascular plants. Its early phase was ... classification, in which types of tissues were rigidly defined. . . . Investigation has passed from the study of mature tissues to the study of developing tissues, and the seedling is more important to the anatomist than the adult body . . . it must check the conclusions of the older morphol­ ogy at every point . . . ecological anatomy can make no progress until it be­ comes an experimental subject [holding] the same relation to experimental morphology that evolutionary anatomy holds to evolutionary morphology. . . .

That phase known as so-called "adaptations to environment" must merge experimentally in ecology, Coulter said. The most funda­ mental problems being physiological, ecology's real progress is and will be "measured by its experimental work conducted upon a definite physiological basis." In a very real sense, chemistry, physics, and botany had joined hands as progressive partners. Taxonomy as a cataloguer of material now had more than ever before the problem of the fluctuating variation, and now the mutant new species. In horti­ culture and, of course, in botany, the problem of the "physiological" species as distinguished from the systematist's concepts, the limits of which were more or less arbitrarily set, had been subjects of a num­ ber of able discussions from leaders such as L. H. Bailey. Gray, how­ ever, had written with apparently full understanding of this, and although the works of Mendel and De Vries were unknown to him Sciences, ed. by Howard J. Rogers, V, (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1906), pp. 4 S., where Coulter's address appears too. 52 "Chapters in the History of American Botany," School Science and Mathematics·, XI (1911), 814. ff.; also XII (1912), 210, "Forty Year? of Plant Morphology."

202

John Merle Coulter

he had given American taxonomy its fundamental working laws which together with codes were followed as closely as truth and cir­ cumstances allowed. The problem was, nevertheless, how to rep­ resent the new facts in nomenclature and taxonomy. Coulter saw progress eventually coming from all the discussion. Coulter seemed once again to have sensed correctly the impact of new developments in the science. With his genius as an interpreter he once again had explained more clearly than had been realized, what had taken place and what would happen. There is nothing to show that he was extraordinarily astonished by De Vries's revelations. There is every reason to believe that De Vries's discovery was what Coulter had long been awaiting, for what he had long hoped. Coulter saw progress in what De Vries produced, what the comparative anato­ mists were establishing, what ecology had accomplished and yet could do. Even more tersely he saw the tremendous role to be played by physiology. In his admirable address in 1900, "The Mission of Sci­ ence in Education,"58 he had differentiated clearly the roles of synthe­ sis and analysis, in both investigation and teaching. Science developed a new attitude of mind in education. In it are found the spirit of in­ quiry, the spirit demanding "that there shall be no hiatus between an effect and its claimed cause, and that the cause claimed shall be ade­ quate." It is the spirit that keeps one close to the facts, giving a train­ ing essential to well-balanced education, productive of self-elimina­ tion in contrast to the interjection of self resulting in the power of appreciation in the humanities. Self-injection in science vitiates the result, however admirable and imperative in the humanities. Yet, in science there must be not only analysis, but also synthesis, the work of the coordinator and interpreter. The danger in universities, said Coulter, was that too many investigators had to teach, creating the problem of born teachers trying to investigate and born investiga­ tors trying to teach. The need of a solution was seen. By 1905, how­ ever, one solution was evident—the experimental laboratory where the investigator might investigate. De Vries was an admirable ex­ ample. Later, in 1906, the great Hollander was to return to the United States to deliver an address at the bicentennial anniversary exercises 53 An address delivered at the annual commencement of the University of Michigan, June 2i, 1900, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Published by the university.

Leadership in World Botany

203

honoring Benjamin Franklin. "Elementary Species in Agriculture" was to be his subj ect. He was also to serve as a lecturer on "The cor­ relation of characters in plants" at the New York Botanical Garden 5 also, to deliver another course of lectures at the summer session of the University of California. The degree Doctor of Laws would be conferred by the University of Pennsylvania. De Vries made the trips to America in great part to see Oenothera Lamarckiana in its native habitats. Moreover, on the occasion of his second American trip, as he did of his first j ourney, he was to write; of seeing the cypress swamps and insectivorous plants, the Grand Canyon, San Diego, the Santa Catalina marine vegetation, of a camping trip in the San Ber­ nardino Mountains, of seeing Monterey, Mill Valley, Mount Hamil­ ton, of examining Great Salt Lake, the agriculture of central United States, of visiting many experiment stations en route and being fur­ ther impressed with their work. And this time De Vries observed the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Cowles in his review of the book in the Gazette regarded De Vries as "one of the ablest men of our day." Coulter, also, reviewing the master's Plant Breeding of the same year paid homage, seemingly especially impressed with his observations on plant geographical distribution and affirming, "The qualities of organisms are the causes, and the distribution is the result." A number of years later, in 1912, De Vries, accompanied by H. H. Bartlett was to go to Alabama, meet S. M. Tracy, go with him IOO miles up the Alabama River to a station of the evening primrose, thence with Professor Tracy to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas where he would dedicate the new Rice Institute at Houston, and then accompany Dr. J. K. Small after visiting the Florida experiment sta­ tion to investigate the interesting tropical vegetation of the Ever­ glades and Keys, especially at Biscayne Bay near Miami where the United States subtropical station was by that time located. Shore vege­ tation and the notable similarity of that and the West Indies islands vegetations were of interest. Much destruction had wrought havoc with the Florida hammock vegetational regions but at the New York Botanical Garden there remained the early collections made by Blodgett for John Torrey and this made the display complete. On this trip also, De Vries, among other matters, delivered a lecture at Rutgers College on "A New Conception of the Evolutionary Theory" j a lecture on "Experiments in Mutation" at the New York

204

John Merle Coulter

Botanical Garden 5 and a lecture at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. The last two were accompanied by functions—a dinner given by Dr. R. A. Harper to twenty-six botanists in De Vries's honor, and at the Brooklyn Garden De Vries planted a tree. De Vries was both investigator and interpreter. His regard for work done in purely scientific institutions was very great. His equally high regard for scholarly research and teaching in American uni­ versities endeared him to all scientists. De Vries was a model for all workers and the world acclaimed him. Only a few years before De Vries's first visit to America the im­ portant United States Bureau of Plant Industry had been established as a functioning unit. In the last decades of the past century, partly on urgings of Swingle with Dr. B. T. Galloway (pioneer pathologist and chief of the section, later division, of vegetable pathology), and soon after Albert F. Woods as a physiologist became Galloway's as­ sistant, the division's name had been changed to vegetable physiology and pathology. Various other divisions had grown during the years and about 1900 a movement for consolidation of all plant industry work got under way resulting in formation of the bureau. The re­ search factor was dominant. Included among prominent men of the science connected with one division or another in field or indoor labo­ ratory work were not only such men of caliber as Galloway, Woods, Smith, Webber, Swingle, Fairchild, T. F. A. Williams, Jared Smith, and others, but also George T. Moore, Karl Kellerman, Ernst Bessey, B. M. Duggar, Hermann von Schrenck, Rodney True, and assistants, among not the least of whom was W. A. Taylor, later chief of the bureau following Galloway. The story of the bureau's founding was somewhat complicated but suffice it to say that although the botanical division at first opposed consolidation and the plan generally contem­ plated only four divisions—physiology and pathology, horticulture (pomology), gardens and grounds, and agrostology—the Congres­ sional Act brought the division of botany into the group, and executive orders soon added other divisions. Experimentation had vastly in­ creased the scope of plant studies in relation to agriculture. The Ex­ periment Station Record of itself revealed need of integrating work of Europe and America. Work of many other men, Carleton, Orton, Corbett, Brackett, Cook, Hitchcock, Coville, Dorsett, Pierce, Patter­ son, and still others, soon gave the bureau world distinction. Yet, in

Leadership in World Botany

205

large part, need of research in transportation—refrigeration and storage facilities—occasioned by experience gained when plant prod­ ucts were shipped in 1900 to the Paris Exposition for exhibition to stimulate foreign trade and relieve a threatened crop surplus, had been responsible for creation of the bureau. Europe and America were much bound together in plant science work. From Russia and Siberia had come many hardy fruit varieties for the northwest plains of the United States, for Canada, and northern New England. From Mediterranean regions, France, and the Rhine country, had come improved and new varieties of grapes, dates, figs, citrus, and many other fruits. Introductions of new grains and new vegetables were being studied and tested. Many new species of edible plants had been, and were being, imported from all parts of the world—Japan, China, islands of the south Atlantic and Pacific, Asia Minor, and many other places. Indeed, the cultivation of wild Ameri­ can forms had been going on for decades. The augmentation of de­ sirable qualities in domesticated plants; the study of sprays, insecti­ cides, and fungicides, to prevent immense annual crop losses; the growing of winter vegetables, and pomological products under glass; the recognition of floricultural science; improved methods of storage, refrigeration, railway transportation, and shipping; the systematic organization of all horticultural and agricultural products, taking into account not only evolutionary development and amelioration of forms but, inspired by European and American work, the develop­ ment of high standards in disease study in both laboratory and field; all made for well defined American industries of magnificent poten­ tialities, in freshly delivered as well as canned products. The "new horticulture," sponsored by Bailey, Emmett Stull Goff, Frank A. Waugh, Edward J. Wickson, S. A. Beach, Η. E. Van Deman, Τ. V. Munson, E. S. Carman, J. C. Whitten, W. R. Lazenby, U. P. Hedrick, B. D. Halsted, the federal workers, and many other practical growers and station investigators, had become a reality, many of its biological phases being with botany and many of its business phases with agriculture. Scientific agriculture, still less than three decades old and for which the Bussey Institution and a long list of notables labored—Johnson, Atwater, Stockbridge, Miles, the Cooks, Roberts, Caldwell, Comstock, Townshend, etc.—had been a factor.

CHAPTER X PURE AND PRACTICAL SCIENCE

to get adequate money appropriation and lack of time prevented Coulter from developing taxonomy at Chicago. As ex­ perimental science grew in importance, additional apparatus was re­ quired and these involved expense. Barnes's interest in systematics diminished with the advancing era of physiology. Coulter saw the possibilities in developing students having knowledge of microtech­ niques. The ledgers and balance sheets of the University of Chicago, however, were none too sound. Expenditures exceeded income year after year. And John D. Rockefeller required the university to "put its house in order." Consequently, faculty membership had to be re­ duced and debits had to be cut. Coulter, having himself been a col­ lege president, appreciated the value of aiding the administration whenever possible. He had spoken too many times at Dr. Harper's memorable Sunday four o'clock vesper service. Economic health meant spiritual health to Coulter. Quite definitely he believed that the university's projection should be in the realm of righteousness as in learning. His department would, he determined, aid the uni­ versity in reducing expenses. Taxonomy, consequently, became the last subject to develop under Coulter. And it was many years before even advanced work in systematics was done by large numbers of stu­ dents. On May 8, 1900, he told Rose: aiLURE

I am surprised at what you say in reference to the rumor concerning my herbarium. It is not stored away in a cellar, nor is it in a very bad condition. All of the mounted plants are in regular herbarium cases, in a large room ad­ joining my office and devoted to that purpose. These are in as good condition as plants can be without the constant supervision of a curator. Possibly the re­ port has arisen from the fact that I do have a lot of recent material in boxes which have not yet been opened. These boxes are stored in one of my base­ ment rooms, and are in perfectly dry and comfortable quarters.

However, as the Field Museum herbarium grew in importance, it seemed unwise to have competition between these two institutions of the central West. Why should the University of Chicago build a great herbarium when one already existed in Chicago?1 Coulter and 1 See Coulter's "The Columbian Museum" (abstract), Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci., 1893, 1894, p. 274. Also frequent references to the Field Museum and its work, contained in

Pure and Practical Science

207

Dr. Millspaugh were never inimical. Their fields became different. Millspaugh came from West Virginia where he had compiled one of the model state floras of this continent. On becoming associated with the Field Museum, he threw his lot with Britton and the New York Botanical Garden in taxonomy. Millspaugh was much interested in exploration and on occasions, once when studying northern limits of the Antillean flora, accompanied Britton to Florida and the West In­ dies islands when the latter was directing the truly great systematization of regions theretofore unknown to botanical exploration. Millspaugh's floras of Yucatan, the Bahama Islands, St. Croix and others of the West Indies, and Santa Catalina Island became noteworthy productions in annals of the North American taxonomy. The United States from coast to coast, Mexico, Brazil, and many other places were included within his exploration repertory. Little wonder that Coulter decided that advanced research in taxonomy could better be done by combining the two herbaria and work by university students be done at the Field Museum. Although in later years at the university Coul­ ter gave instruction again in advanced taxonomy and some instruction continued generally most of the time, he decided to go out of the "taxonomy business." In June 1907, the University of Chicago her­ barium, consisting of 29,128 mounted specimens and 13,698 un­ mounted, together with one box "not to be organized," was deposited with the Field Museum. Coulter added from his own collections that year and other years. And in 1932 the entire deposit, consisting of 51,603 specimens valued at $40,000, was given outright.2 Ezra Jacob Kraus persuaded the university to make this gift. Nevertheless, during the intervening years between 1900 and 1932, Coulter continued to give some taxonomic direction. On Oc­ tober 6, 1902, he wrote Rose: You have long urged me to prepare a new edition of the Rocky Mountain Manual. You will be glad to know that this has been under way for a year or so, Professor Aven Nelson being associated with me in getting the proper material together. I do not believe any one is more familiar with this partic­ ular field than he. I wish you would prepare the Umbelliferae for the Manual. You know what the range is, and can bring the whole thing up to date better than I can. . . . the Gazette. After Dr. Greenman became curator of the museum, even when assistant, cordial relations were maintained. Greenman became a member of the university's faculty. 2 Taken from records at the Field Museum, Chicago.

208

John Merle Coulter

Two weeks later Coulter asked Rose, "Are there not some other groups of that region that you are fresh enough to undertake for us without too much trouble? I do not wish to load you up, but I would like to get you into the Manual for all you care to stand for." Coulter and Nelson also wished Rose to take Crassulaceae and the Oenothera segregates. On November 28, Coulter added, "I believe in cutting down the descriptions to the lowest terms, and at the same time to have the species clearly differentiated. We must not sacrifice clear­ ness to brevity. It seems to me, however, that cutting down much among the Umbelliferae is going to be difficult, since so many forms are very critical, and not easily distinguished." Coulter was not al­ ways easy with Rose. When they were preparing their Monografh of North American Umbelliferae^ Coulter wrote: I do not see that you have any business just now in looking at the "many good points of our paper." It is the weak points that we are concerned about, which must be eliminated as far as possible before the paper appears. I am very glad that you have given so much time to looking up the original references. I felt that this would have to be done, and of course you are most conveniently situated to do it. Some of the reference blunders creep in in copying. For ex­ ample, in a reference you sent to me a few days ago, there was a mistake of a hundred years in the date of a genus. If I had not happened to notice that the species described under it were older, I should not have caught it. Of course I looked it up and found out what was the matter. After you have looked up the date, and written it down to be copied, the work is only half done. The result, when it comes from the typewriter, must be looked at just as rigidly, with your own copy by the side of it. The lack of uniformity which you have hit upon is exactly what made me bring the manuscript home with me. To bring about uniformity is what editor­ ial work means. You need not be troubled that there are six ways of referring to the King Survey report. There would have been only one way after it had left my hands, but it is just as well for me to know the particular form you use in Washington. I might not have hit upon that, and it is as good as any other. There is lack of uniformity in presentation throughout the whole pile of manuscript. Our ideas began to formulate while the work was going on, and a good many pages were written very early in the year, and there was no time to change them in accordance with our later ideas. There is lack of uni­ formity in citing collectors, in the order of descriptions, in the way of phrases referring to the same thing, in fact an endless lot of changes to be made.

However, although at times he could unleash a sharp weapon of ridicule, Coulter was seldom severe. In 1904 when Rose had as­ sembled new species from Mexico to be added to their Synopsis of Mexican and Central American Umbelliferae published in 1900 in

Pure and Practical Science

209

the Proceedings of the Washington Academy, Coulter, just returned from his nine months' vacation, wrote Rose on January 8, 1904: . . . my duties here come first. It seems to me that it would be better for you to go ahead and do this thing alone. I am entirely too much immersed in other matters to make any real contribution of ideas in reference to these new species. I think it would be straining a point to include my name, even if you should send the material to me. The work after all would be yours, for I do not have that intimate fa­ miliarity with the forms which must come from almost daily contact with them. I would have to brush a lot of rust off before I could be of any service, and that takes too much time under the present circumstances. . . .

To the charge that Coulter took credit for the work of others, let the following letter stand as answer. It was written by Coulter in No­ vember 1908 when Rose sought his joint authorship to the supple­ ment to their Monografh of North American Umbellijerae. As for the joint authorship of a paper on Umbelliferae, you are very kind to suggest it, but my association with it would be more a matter of form than of service, for I have paid no attention whatsoever to the group or any other group since our monograph. You have followed up the situation and have kept your hand on the business, so that the contribution would have to be yours, even if my name appeared in connection with it. That is not the sort of thing I believe in, and have criticised it in others, so it would hardly be consistent for me to fall into the error. Of course I would be interested in re­ newing my acquaintance with it, but your purpose is not to coach me up in the Umbelliferae, but to get my judgment.

Coulter's name did appear as a joint author of the supplement. Only, however, at the insistence of Rose. Coulter's definition of the modus operandi of North American taxonomy was contained in his letter to Rose October 10, 1904: Of course you should go ahead and publish Eryngium Watsoni. It is curious that it has not been published before. It is also a distinct disappointment to me that I have neither time nor facilities here to continue to work along with you among the Umbelliferae. You can understand how the organization of a great department, and chiefly the necessity of developing along morphological lines, made it impossible to continue work in systematic botany. This work must continue to be done by those who have access to large collections, and ought not to be attempted in more than three or four places in this country.

Coulter continued to ask Rose for material for experimental study. To do work on the inflorescence of Crassulaceae, to secure specimens of Hemsley's Juliana for morphological study, to do some important

210

John Merle Coulter

investigation of spores of certain ferns, he turned to Rose for material. For example, on July 28, 1908, he wrote: The material of Lygodium, which you were good enough to send, has been utilized. If it will be possible to get a little more of this a little younger than the oldest you sent and a little older than the youngest, it would be a great favor. In the oldest material the sporangia had mostly shed their spores; while in the youngest sporangia the spores were not ready for germination. While you are about this, if you see any ferns other than Polypodiaceae in spore-shedding condition, or any Polypodiaceae from the tropics, it would be a great favor to get a few pinnae. I hate to impose upon you in this way, but the research on hand is im­ portant, and I think you will feel that the results justify the trouble when you see them.

Moreover, on August 27, 1907, Coulter had written Rose explain­ ing the arrangement with Field Museum whereby the university deposited its herbarium and the museum agreed to "put it into avail­ able shape, so that it may be included in any studies for which it may contain material." Coulter had traveled a long, difficult road in giving up taxonomy. The multiplication of species, the disregard of the Rochester Code in uncounted instances, the revival of the controversy concerning prior specific names, the developing institutional independence in America were but a few matters which had worried him as editor and as taxonomist. Some claimed that the "day of law" had begun. But others said not. The Gazette published strong articles. In 1901, Merritt Lyndon Fernald, writing on "Some Recent Publications and the Nomenclatorial Principles They Represent," asked :3 Has the "day of law" really begun when those with whom a great trust has been placed juggle with it as a toy, now following this principle, now that, and ignoring at their own wills such candid criticisms of their methods as show the inconsistencies in their work?

Again, arguing "the instability of the Rochester nomenclature,"4 Fernald asked: Do we sincerely want uniformity, or do we prefer the tangled results of in­ dividual interpretation ? If the former ideal still appeals to us, why not abandon this restless pursuit of the will-o'-the wisp? Why not honestly test the com­ bined Berlin rule for genera and Kew rule for species? None of their op­ ponents have given them a fair trial. Until they do can they really judge of their merits? . . . 3 4

Botanical Gazette, XXXI (January-June 1901), 183. Ibid., XXXII (July-December 1901), 359 ff.

Pure and Practical Science

211

After such clear definition of the principle of priority by Professors Britton, Greene, and Underwood, we are now amazed to see from Professor Britton's pen a convincing argument against the uniform selection of the first species as the type of a complex genus. . . . Two fundamental principles of the Rochester Code are . . . deserted by the chairman of the Rochester committee on nomenclature, while strongly de­ fended by only one of the original members. And now from Nebraska, which has not long been notable as the seat of ultra-conservatism, comes the an­ nouncement, in regard to the recent work of the only consistent member of the original committee, that "it shakes one's faith in the immutability of things to find old friends under unfamiliar names."

The silent issue of regional North American independence or con­ tinuation of the long-established policy of North American and Eu­ ropean interdependence was slowly gathering momentum. Coulter stood by the position of Gray to the limit of applicability—conformity to established practice. On March 5, 1901, he told Rose: I have just been looking over Robinson's review of our Monograph in the American Journal of Science. I do not believe he is strictly pleased, and prob­ ably the trouble is that he dislikes our acceptance of the Rochester Code, which he claims to have knocked out. He ought to know that the publications of the Government are committed to this Code. . . .

On June 13 he told Davenport: I have yours of June 10 in reference to Mr. Maxon's List of ferns. Quite a fern breeze has been stirred up in the Botanical Gazette by Mr. M. L. Fernald's recent criticism. Mr. Pollard has replied and so has Mr. Underwood. Mr. W. N. Clute has also sent an open letter. . . . It seems to me that we have given about all the space to this particular subject that we can afford. . . . As to the validity of species, this is quite another matter, and of course the opinions of botanists will differ and must always differ in this particular. . . .

And as to the matter of multiplying species, Coulter told Bessey: I have from you the marked copy of Science containing your "Multiplica­ tion of species in botany." Your illustration from Crategus is just to the point. But why did you not wait for Beadle's last fascicle of species in the second part of the Biltmore Botanical Studies? He adds one hundred and five species at one fell swoop! It looks to me as though this business of the thorns is not go­ ing to end until every individual in the country has been described as a species. We may laugh at the British brambles, but the American thorns have become still more of a by-word.

Coulter had already commented years before on Britton's "Hicoria" as priority over "Carya . . . a fearful tearing up of specific names," and the change by Charles Sprague Sargent to "Hicorius"

212

John Merle Coulter

as requiring the hickories to use all their strength "to carry their load of synonymy." Britton, it must be said, had put up a long fight for what he be­ lieved to be American sufficiency in systematics. On May 26, 1890, he wrote Bessey: . . . By the way, I am just mailing you a copy of the New Jersey Catalogue. I suppose my very good friends at Kew and Cambridge will cut me dead hereafter, and if they don't do so on this provocation, they will get some more reason for so doing in the sweet bye and bye (D.V). But it has been decreed that the Chinese5 must go, and I suppose the same idea of shutting out non-American notions and practices will win in the end. After which somewhat ambiguous remarks, I would say that we look to you to see that the northwest flora is properly named.

Soon afterward he told Bessey that Robinson had given "the Cam­ bridge position" away by some remarks and that Coville would an­ swer him "and pull every leg out from under him." The controversies had accomplished the promulgation of the Rochester Code. But by 1898 Robinson stirred Britton again and Britton wrote Bessey: I see that Dr. Robinson is indulging himself in nomenclature, and I have half a mind to answer After trying at Springfield to get him to come on tee, and his flat refusal it is somewhat out of place that he does.

sundry remarks relative to him. What do you think? the nomenclature commit­ for him to be saying things

So the controversy continued and Coulter, probably glad to avoid entanglement further than his editorial responsibility required, turned away from taxonomy. In 1898 the New England Botanical Club was formed and in January of the following year Rhodora, its journal, interested pri­ marily in "the scientific study of the New England flora," began publication with Dr. Robinson as editor-in-chief. Dr. Underwood, who, after positions at Illinois Wesleyan, Syracuse, DePauw, and Alabama Polytechnic, was now at Columbia where he was professor of botany and an authority on ferns and Hepaticae, wrote Bessey in 1897, ". . . Since my stay in Europe and the 'effete civilization of the old world' I have become more and more convinced that America is rapidly becoming the leader in things botanical. 'Westward the course of empire takes its way' is destined to be just as true of Botany as of every good thing." The New York Botanical Garden was reorganiz5 Referring possibly to Conioselinum cMnensis, Britton's naming of Conioselinum Canadense about 1888.

Pure and Practical Science

213

ing its system of publications. On May 2, 1898, he explained to Bessey: Since the January number of the Bulletin we have decided to make it more and more the organ of the club and therefore withdraw it entirely from any editorial function in the way of book notices, disquisitions, personal notices or news of any kind. This is well covered by the Gazette and there is no use of duplicating them in this field. So by this ruling we are to have no more book notices as such in the Bulletin at least as long as I continue in the chair.

In 1900 the Journal of the New York Botanical Garden came into being, and in 1901 the magazine Torreya. The Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club became a magazine of highest authority in taxonomy. And Underwood called on American botanists to recognize the new day in America: The time has come for American Botany to assert itself in the modern way that becomes Americans, and assume its true position in the work of botany in the world. We have the men who have profited from the training of the best the Old World could produce in morphological, physiological and cytological work among plants; we have young men trained and in training who have the mental acumen of the best any country can produce, combined with a degree of practicality, vitality and energy of which very many of the Eu­ ropeans are lacking; we have men of means who are philanthropic toward botanical research and stand willing to aid in every work that merits recogni­ tion, and if we in America do not in the next quarter of a century lead the world in matters botanical, it will be because we are not true to the instincts that guided the fathers in botany and because we do not enter into our heritage and magnify our opportunities.8

All this sounded well. And what happened? After rules and rec­ ommendations of the Vienna Congress of 1905 were published, a nomenclatural commission of the botanical club of the American As­ sociation prepared an "American Code of Botanical Nomenclature," which was published in 1907 by the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. The Gazette expressed itself in certain language :8 This "American Code" is in effect an announcement that the botanists signing it will not be bound by the ruling of the Vienna Congress; but how far this attitude represents American botanists remains to be seen. The Botanical Gazette, while not in full accord with all the rulings of the Vienna Congress, is decidedly in favor of any international agreement that will bring some meas­ ure of uniformity. While the "American Code" contends for certain prin­ ciples, some of which doubtless should be contended for in an international 6 "The Last Quarter—A Reminiscence and an Outlook," address of the retiring- presi­ dent, Botanical Society of America, Science, n.s., XII (August 3, 1900), 170. 7 Botanical Gazette, XLIV (July-December 1907), 80.

214

John Merle Coulter

congress, the most important principle to be established is international agree­ ment.

On December 22, 1909, Aven Nelson's revised edition of Coulter's Manual of Botany of the Central Rocky Mountains (vascular plants) was published, one year after the appearance of Robinson and Fernald's seventh edition of Gray's Manual. Both books were published by the American Book Company and both were reviewed in the Ga­ zette by Dr. J. M. Greenman. The Rocky Mountain Manual was brought into the sequence of Engler and Prantl and the results of taxonomic researches incorporated, descriptions of older species be­ ing rewritten in the light of more complete material, together with keys placed at the beginning of all larger genera. The territory cov­ ered by the original edition remained practically the same. However, in the new edition of the Gray Manual the geographical limits ex­ cluded the region west of the ninety-sixth meridian and extended northeastward to include the maritime provinces and a portion of Quebec and Ontario, making it essentially as it was described "a handbook of the flowering plants and ferns of the central and north­ eastern United States and adjacent Canada." The sequence of the families was for the most part the system of Eichler elaborated by Engler and Prantl. It conformed strictly to nomenclatural rules adopted at the International Congress at Vienna in 1905. Of the Gray Manual Greenman said: On the whole this new edition of the well known Gray's Manual presents a flora of the central and northeastern United States, and adjacent Canada in a single volume of convenient size and moderate price, thoroughly revised to date, incorporating the verified results of recent years of research, and fully accords with the most advanced and universally accepted views of taxonomy.

Of the Coulter Manual Greenman's comments were in part: . . . The botanical public is to be congratulated on having the revision of this well known manual made by one whose continued activities in the field and extended knowledge of the Rocky Mountain· flora have peculiarly fitted him for the work in hand.

Nelson had established at the University of Wyoming the im­ portant Rocky Mountain herbarium, an invaluable service to the botany of these regions. What Willis Linn Jepson became to systematization of the flora of the Pacific coast, particularly California, Aven Nelson became to the flora of the Rocky Mountain regions, especially Wyoming and

Pure and Practical Science

215

the northwestern states—an authority. Each had gone to prominent collegiate institutions of these states when their schools were begin­ ning their earliest great years of development. Both became primarily systematists, although each had had valuable study in morphology and physiology, Jepson having the added benefit of acquaintance and work with Edward Lee Greene, in California. Coulter had become interested in Nelson through contributions to the Gazette. In 1901, after some correspondence, they had met in Denver and discussed a revision of Coulter's Rocky Mountain Man­ ual. Popular manuals, more or less introductory to more complete taxonomic works for scholars, were beginning to have some vogue, especially in the West. Dr. Jepson, Coulter informed Nelson, was preparing one for Pacific coast regions. Publishers were interested in one for "the Denver region," to include probably Colorado and Wyoming. And Nelson was considered for this job. On October 14, 1901, Nelson wrote Coulter at Laramie, Wyoming: . . . In the preface the range can be stated as Colorado and Wyoming, and including all such extra-limital species as may possibly or probably occur within said range, I think it can then be shown that this limiting of the range has excluded but few of the species of the present edition of the Manual and that the addition of the hundreds of new species since the issue of the first edition has produced a Manual that will be more serviceable in the adjacent states of Montana, Eastern Idaho, Utah and New Mexico than the original Manual of the Rocky Mountains. . . .

It was agreed that the Engler and Prantl sequence of orders and the "new" nomenclature as was fairly well established and accepted, were to be used. Cultivated plants were to be omitted. The key used was to be introductory to works of either Gray or Britton. Royalty was to be shared much as Coulter had shared in the Gray Manual proceeds. Coulter secured the publisher. And Nelson began the work of years which became, except for copyreading and corrections and some criticisms, almost solely his. In 1901 Coulter feared that Rydberg's Flora of Montana might prove a serious rival, just as a proposed flora of Colorado by him might also compete with their work. However, on February 24, 1902, Coulter wrote Nelson: Before his Montana manual was out I feared that we had a serious rival in the field. Since that time, however, I have had no concern. His manual is an exceedingly useful one for botanists, but is entirely unworkable in ele-

2l6

John Merle Coulter

mentary instruction. You will find the field still clear for our manual, if we adapt it to the field work of the ordinary school.

The years passed and Coulter's correspondence with Nelson con­ tinued. In 1905 they agreed that "it would be wise for us to adopt the no­ menclature rules of the Vienna Congress. It will show," said Coulter, "that we are playing the game, & not sticking to our own opinion after we have agreed to arbitration." Difficulties increased nomenclaturally and, the manual progress proving slow, Coulter appeased Nelson's dissatisfaction, saying: I knew what an awful job it was, and that the best intentions could not anticipate the time necessary. I appreciate also the awful situation as to nomenclature. At the meeting of the American Association here at the University, there was a symposium deal­ ing with the species concept. Dr. Britton was a participant, and he acknowl­ edged that this segregation business must be stopped, so far as the multiplica­ tion of specific names is concerned. We have come to the end of this sort of thing, and you are entirely right in adopting a conservative attitude. You will find that you are expected to include in the Manual only such forms as ama­ teurs can recognize, and only such names as will come under the Vienna rules.

This was in 1908 and the following month Coulter again explained: There is a general consent in this country to follow these (Vienna) rules, simply because something must be followed to develop as much international uniformity as possible. This attitude was brought out strongly at the Associa­ tion meeting here in connection with a symposium on "What is a species?" Even Dr. Britton was clear on the subject, but this does not mean that he is going to coerce all of the men on his staff to do what he thinks ought to be done. I do not quite understand that sort of thing, but perhaps it is "academic freedom." With all the taxonomic centers in Europe and this country, with the partial exception of New York, following the Vienna rules, there seems to be no reason why the outlying botanists should not do the same. This does not mean, however, the immediate going over of the whole range of genera and species covered by an extensive manual. In fact the spirit at Vienna was distinctly against that sort of wholesale work. It was felt that the changes involved should be made in connection with serious and competent monograph studies. This means that in our manual only those changes need be made to secure conformity with the Vienna rules that you know about. . . .

And when at length by January 1909 the new edition was com­ pleted and read critically by Coulter, he pronounced it "a splendid piece of work . . . just what was wanted." Nelson and the University of Wyoming would stand for the flora of the Rocky Mountains "in a very conspicuous way" thereafter for certain. Coulter was much

Pure and Practical Science

217

impressed with Nelson's ability as a taxonomist, in fact, so impressed that he urged Rose to find a place for him at Washington. Nelson, however, was like Bessey, a believer in and a lover of the West. For a time he served as president of the University of Wyoming. Cer­ tainly no one other individual contributed more to the knowledge of the flora of the interior west than he. Per Axel Rydberg's Catalogue of the Flora of Montana and Yel­ lowstone National Park was published in 1900 as Volume I of the Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden. Britton regarded Rydberg as having remarkable botanical acumen and sagacity and such was so. Such works as Rydberg's "Flora of the Black Hills of South Dakota," an United States Herbarium Contribution, and Nel­ son's "Flora of Wyoming" in process of compilation, Nelson's "The Red Desert of Wyoming and its Forage Resources" and similar works were adding to the knowledge of the interior west. Indeed, Rydberg's "Studies on the Rocky Mountain Flora" in some respects presented one of the ablest examples of taxonomic work in the history of North American botany. Rydberg was probably the ablest student in sys­ tematic botany whom Bessey produced. As an explorer and as a stu­ dent of geographical plant distribution in the Rocky Mountain areas especially, he was best known. In the interior west there were still some areas botanically unex­ plored. MacDougal had done some exploring in regions of Idaho, Washington, Utah, and Montana, returning with thousands of her­ barium specimens for himself, the government, or the New York Bo­ tanical Garden. J. B. Leiberg's botanical survey of the Coeur d'Alene Mountains, exploring for the United States Department of Agri­ culture a little known region, was illustrative of a type of survey now in progress. Topography, drainage, climate, mineral deposits, agri­ cultural capacity, agricultural products, grazing lands, native food plants, water supply, forest resources, and many other such matters, were dealt with and representing a type of report not primarily systematic, required nevertheless botanical exploration. The Rocky Mountain region since the publication of Coulter's original Manual had not only expanded in botanical contemplation but was much more thoroughly known. Botanical exploration of the interior west—northwest and north and even west of the Rocky Mountain region first conceived by ex-

218

John Merle Coulter

plorers—was particularly important since among early explorations of the great western areas to the Pacific some of the difficult but im­ portant interior western areas had been among the last reached. Coul­ ter's Rocky Mountain Manual, embracing western North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, practically all of Colo­ rado, Wyoming, and Montana, and eastern parts of Idaho and Utah, together with his Texan Manual covering practically all of Texas, an eastern slice of New Mexico, and part of Oklahoma, had done great service to American botany. These had systematized a large area from the Canadian border south to the Rio Grande River through regions, many of which were among the last to be explored. North­ ern Idaho regions were in parts later explored. Some Utah and south­ western United States areas, were also later more thoroughly ex­ plored. However, explorations there, like many others into isolated and remote localities of the United States, were more in defined areas of a special nature and many times to gather particular plants. It may be said that the first great period of American botanical explora­ tion had been completed. In 1899 at the Yale meeting, Coulter had been made a member of the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology. This society, affiliated with the American Society of Naturalists, had been formed about two years previous and Farlow had served as one of its early presidents. Such eminent North American botanists as John M. Macfarlane, George T. Moore, David P. Penhallow—author of "The Anatomy of the North American Coniferales,"8 A Manual of the North American Gymnosperms, Exclusive oj the Cycadalesj and an eminent student of North American paleobotanical floras—and Erwin F. Smith, were also among its presidents. To this list may be added E. C. Jeffrey whose presidential address in 1905 was on "Morphol­ ogy and Phylogeny." At one of its meetings was read W. F. Ganong's paper, "The Phyto-ecology of the Bay of Fundy Salt Marshes," a work precursory to his "Ecological Plant-Geography of the Province of New Bruns­ wick" and ranking among the first great ecological studies made in North America. Cowles's initial studies in northern Michigan; Harry 8 Published in the American Naturalist and said by the Gazette to be "of great impor­ tance from the paleobotanical and phylogenetic standpoints," Botanical Gazette, XXXIX (January-June 1905), 305.

Pure and Practical Science

219

Nichols Whitford's "Genetic Development of the Forests of North­ ern Michigan" and his later studies at Flathead, Montana; state sur­ veys such as the Natural History Survey and Charles C. Adams's later ecological survey of Michigan commenced in large part by work of Volney Spalding, F. C. Newcombe, and by separate studies of Living­ ston and others were among America's early important work in this line. Cowles's work at Marquette was extended in 1900 to the Ten­ nessee Mountains} in 1902 to the gulf coast of Mississippi and to Mount Katahdin, Maine, and the Atlantic Coast, while C. D. Howe and L. H. Harvey did individual work in that State and Vermont; in 1903 to Arizona; in 1904 to the Florida Everglades; and later to the Torreya taxijolia region near Apalachicola, with further study in the Everglades. MacMillan's Minnesota Plant Life and W. A. Wheeler's work in that state's flora were also regarded as significant contributions. The Nebraska studies, including phytogeographic work by Rydberg; Bray's studies in Texas; B. Shimek's, Τ. H. Macbride's, and L. H. Pammel's examinations in Iowa; the most important Con­ tribution from the United States National Herbarium by Thomas H. Kearney, "Report on a Botanical Survey of the Dismal Swamp Re­ gion;" Edgar Nelson Transeau's studies of geographic and ecological relations of bog plant societies; studies of Howard S. Reed;9 J. W. Harshberger's examination of flora of the classic North Carolina m o u n t a i n l a n d s ; P o r t e r ' s F l o r a of Pennsylvania, M o h r ' s P l a n t L i f e of Alabamay Beal's Flora of Michigan, Howell's Flora of Northwest America, and many other treatises, primarily systematic, yet treated in instances ecologically; all had added to ecology's advancement. In 1905 Frederic Edward Clements, a student of prairie and wood­ land Nebraska regions and of the Colorado mountains from where issued many most original and splendid ecological studies, published an early original work, presenting ecology as a dominant theme in plant study. A handbook, rather than textbook, Research Methods in Ecology presented the problems of the new branch of the science, identifying the work of physiology in research methods and advanc­ ing matured claims for establishment of an experimental taxonomy. Cowles said, "One can scarcely praise this work too much; it is what is needed to prevent ecology from falling into a swift and merited 9 See also Reed's "A Brief History of Ecological Work in Botany," Plant World, VIII (July 1905), 165 ff.

220

John Merle Coulter

disfavor." In 1899 Clements had informed Coville at Washington that he contemplated making a complete collection of materials from the subalpine and alpine regions of the Pike's Peak range, arranged "primarily by formation fascicles showing proper sequences," and thus aided in the extension to America of what Coulter characterized in 18 9 8 as a new type of taxonomic research which included the factor of a modernized study of geographical plant distribution. In this Clements was decidedly a leader. In 1904 he had produced "The Development and Structure of Vegetation," a Nebraska botanical survey study, elaborating the working hypotheses used in 1898 and dealing with the biological interpretation of vegetation. His future and already mature works influenced the course of ecology in America and to Bessey and Pound must be assigned a large part of the sources of his inspiration. Clements in the West, Cowles in the central states, and Ganong in the East all enunciated important principles. In 1906, Ganong, once president of the Botanical Society of America, read before that society another paper on "The Organization of the Eco­ logical Investigation of the Physiological Life-Histories of Plants." North American ecology had developed in less than two decades. The physiological basis that "distinguished," as Cowles said, "the new ecology from that of other days," won its way slowly but steadily. Schimper, author of Pflanzengeographie auf fhysiologischer GrundIage, once a teacher at Johns Hopkins and traveler in Florida, the West Indies, and South America, shared honors in world botany in this regard along with Eugen Warming, Wiesner, Oscar Drude, and others. The memorable point was that physiology and anatomy were becoming increasingly more significant in ecological study. The Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology had a signifi­ cant but not lengthy career. During its existence it aided in securing better reviews of literature in the Botanisches Centralblatt which with an American group of editors was reorganized and working more satisfactorily with the editors abroad. Such services, and others it might perform, were regarded by many as promoting efficiency and justifying the existence of an organization devoted to morphology and physiology. Others, however, took a different position and ac­ credited the society with being more or less an inferior duplicating society to the main group, the Botanical Society of America. In 1902, at the Pittsburgh meeting of the Botanical Society, Coulter spoke on

Pure and Practical Science

221

"The relations of the Botanical Associations of the Country." Later, moreover, at the Washington meeting, the largest gathering of bota­ nists ever to assemble in North America brought the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology, Section G of the American Association, and The Botanical Society of America together. These organizations elected three new presidents: T. H. Macbride for Section Gj Roland Thaxter for the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology ·, and Barnes for the Botanical Society of America. At this time, further­ more, although meeting for some years, botanists of the central states organized, electing MacMillan president. What was to result? It was understandable that many new publications should have sprung into existence. Botany had developed within two decades into an immense study of many branches. Each branch had its own publish­ ing medium, as, for example, The Bryologist, the organ of the Sullivant Moss Society. Each branch was establishing its own societies. Moreover, even departments of various universities had their own publishing media, as, for example, Postelsia, a yearbook, which in addition to Botanical Studies and survey publications published the Minnesota department's work and that of the Minnesota Seaside Sta­ tion located near Vancouver. A flourishing department at the Ohio State University where William Ashbrook Kellerman and J ohn Henry Schaffner conducted an aggressive and well-rounded study of botany, related especially to Ohio, had not only the Journal of Mycology (re­ vived after its abandonment at Washington) but also the Ohio Nat­ uralist, the organ of the biological club. And Kellerman published the Mycological Bulletin. There were also available in various states the proceedings of the state scientific academies. At the Ohio State Uni­ versity there had been organized a lake laboratory, located at San­ dusky Bay, which, together with the United States Fish Hatchery at Put-in-Bay, provided additional facilities for extending investigations in ecology, physiology, and other branches of botany. So permeated with the spirit of studying plant life in their habitats did Kellerman become that, after a trip to Guatemala in 1904-1905 for parasitic fungi, and another trip in 1906 to Lake Amatitlan and Lake Atitlan and the entire country as far as Quetzaltenango, he concluded on yet a third trip to establish a "Peripatetic School of Tropical Bot-

222

John Merle Coulter

any,"10 the first of an American university. Kellerman, a Cornell grad­ uate, who had taught at Kansas State Agricultural College, was a taxonomist and mycologist of much renown. When, while in Guate­ mala in 1908, he was taken with malaria and died, American botany was deprived of a very notable career. Though his first books were not well received, his later work revealed his ability. He was highly regarded by Bessey and Coulter, the latter doing all he could to aid Kellerman's wife financially after her husband's death. Illustration of facilities of any great American university showed remarkably the advancement which North American botany was achieving. Nevertheless, about 1903, a movement to merge the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology and the Botanical Society of America began to take shape. Underwood wrote Bessey: . . . Altho this society was really organized as a sort of protest against our own, about sixty per cent of their members are also members of our society. I do not see that we have anything to gain by any formal union with them and very much to lose if we modify in any way either the matter of our elec­ tions or our fee system which has placed us in the position to offer a specific aid to research. There is nothing to stop the organization of new botanical societies and I understand that a mycological society is well under way. This doubtless will have the effect to reduce the interest in the Soc. PL Morph. and Phys. since several of the leading spirits of that organization are mycologists and about half of the membership. I do not think it will affect us one iota. . . .

A week later Barnes wrote Bessey: At the Pittsburgh meeting of the B [otanical] S[ociety of] A[merica] a com­ mittee was appointed on cooperation with other societies. I am not aware that this committee did anything. There was no report from it at the Washington meeting. At the Washington meeting a committee with Underwood, Barnes, and Bessey as members was appointed to confer with similar committees from other societies regarding cooperative action. . . . I have long cherished the hope that we might avoid the organization and maintenance of multifarious botanical societies, and that all professional botanists of the country of high standing should unite in one society. When the B.S.A. was founded it was with that idea, as I believe. Misconception partly, and partly the high fees imposed to­ gether with the limitations of distance strongly felt by our eastern colleagues led to the foundation of the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology. I understand that arrangements are now completed for the organization of a mycological society. Recently the central botanists organized. The membership of these four societies is more or less identical. Around the nucleus of identical membership there is a fringe of local membership. I believe it should be the policy of the B.S.A. to make itself the dominant force so far 10

See also A. E. Waller's "Professor John Henry Schaffner," o f . c i t . , pp. 258-265.

Pure and Practical Science

223

as organized botanical activity is concerned, and I believe it can only do this by uniting all. . . .

Bessey replied saying he had heard from both Barnes and Ganong and had recently written Underwood: My feeling is that in general it is not a good thing to have too many so­ cieties, but this multiplication of societies which we are now witnessing is merely a phase of the development of botanical knowledge in this country. . . . Now we cannot stop the formation of many societies. Let them be formed by the men who are interested in them. Let us not discourage them, while on the other hand perhaps we need not give a boisterous encouragement. When these many societies are having meetings, let us avoid conflicts as far as possible. . . . In this way we may have for a time a "struggle for existence" resulting in the "survival of the fittest." . ..

Bessey agreed with Barnes's suggestion and outlined Dr. Clements's suggestion for six divisions or units—sections, he called them, of eastern, central, and pacific divisions. He revived the once con­ ceived plan of an American Academy of Botanists. Confidentially he believed the Botanical Society had departed from its former high standards and it was too late to change. But an American Academy might be created. Then he speculated: I have been wondering whether we might not arrange to directly merge [the Botanical Society] with the Society of Plant Morphology and Physiology. Apparently we have here two societies made up of men who are equally repu­ table and having almost the same general purpose. There is no need of our gathering a fund for publication or for research. We have no longer the Academy idea and apparently our work is to be identical with that of the other society. . . . Section G is after all the parent society from which all the botanical societies in this country have sprung. Why should we be such ingrates as to forget our old mother? She is not very well educated, it is true. She is pretty democratic and now and then popular, not perhaps in the best sense, and yet here is the parent from which the present societies have sprung, and the society to which we must all refer sooner or later. It is made up of members (anybody can be a member) and fellows and the latter are distinctly above the former. Now and then somebody gets to be a fellow who is not worthy but in a general way there is a fair gradation probably as fair as we usually find in this world. Section G then is the popular body, entrance to which is as you might say "on the ground floor." . . . Can we not arrange then to use Section G as the parent society, entrance to which is very easy, and then have the botanical society of America (merged or not as may be) with subdivisions either as you have indicated or Doctor Clements or possibly otherwise. . . .

Disagreeing with Barnes's proposal, Underwood wrote Bessey on December 21, 1903:

224

John Merle Coulter

In my opinion we are in exactly the position that his letter hopes we may as­ sume, viz. a "dominant force" in American botany. . . . They [the Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology] have certain members in Professor Barnes' "fringe" that I could not honestly vote for and I believe they have quite a number that would not poll a majority of the votes of the Botanical So­ ciety. . . . There is just as much need as ever to encourage research. The Carnegie institution constantly turns down applicants who have done the high­ est type of work. . . .

Nevertheless, in 1906 the American Mycological Society, the So­ ciety for Plant Morphology and Physiology, and the Botanical So­ ciety of America were united and the great organization, working in conjunction with, but separate from, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was formed. Barnes and Bessey did not win a fight. The need for unified action and unified control was too apparent. Research was the dominant note of the day. Coulter, in the annual address of the chairman at the third annual meeting of the central branch of the American Society of Naturalists, meeting at Chicago the year before, had sounded the note. There he spoke of the work of the Carnegie Institution. In the merger agreement be­ tween the three great societies, specific provision was made for re­ search grants. Coulter delineated the staggering need for research in America. He developed the thesis that the only way this could be adequately accomplished was by creating "Public Interest in Re­ search," the subject of his address.11 Once again Coulter had foreseen the need of missionary service in the interest of science. The new great Botanical Society of America could lead the way. There was need of money, need of facilities, need of research men, and the greatest need of all, need of more pure and practical science. Coulter saw this. The Carnegie Foundation was located in Washington, the result of a gift of ten million dollars made by Andrew Carnegie to promote original research, to select the exceptional man in every branch of study, and enable him to devote his life to the particular study for which he was best fitted. There were other objectives: to increase facilities in higher education and promote efficiency in universities and other branches of learning. Some use of the funds was to be made in publishing results of scientific study. This was a period when men of great wealth aided science with substantial gifts or financing. The i l Pofular

Science Monthly, LXVII (Science Press, 1905), 306 S.

Pure and Practical Science

225

New York Botanical Garden had interested a number of very wealthy persons in their projected explorations of the West Indies and other lands to the southeast and southwest. In 1903 its Board of Managers had authorized commencement of explorations in the Philippine ar­ chipelago and almost immediately R. S. Williams had been sent to Manila. Elmer D. Merrill was there as botanist of the Bureau of Government Laboratories and there was under way one of the greatest contributions of the decade—the Philippine exploration and systematization by American agencies. Alaskan j ourneys had been fi­ nanced both by the United States Government, as, for example, Fred­ erick Funston's exploration of Yakutat Bay in 1892 for the Division of Botany of the Agricultural Department. In 1899, Edward H. Harriman, a railroad official of much wealth, in conjunction with the Washington Academy of Sciences, but entirely at his expense, in­ vited a group of scientists to accompany him by special train and steamer to Alaska. Trelease, Coville, De Alton Saunders, Τ. H. Kearney, Β. E. Fernow, John Muir, and a few others interested in botany went and most consideration was given to fungi, marine algae, and vascular plants. Being primarily systematic in its purposes so far as botany was concerned, most of the reports were in taxonomy. From this expedition issued totally about two dozen special papers and then the entire subject matter was handsomely bound under the authorship of John Burroughs, John Muir, and George Bird Grinnell bearing the title Alaska: Harriman Alaska Expedition,12 and pub­ lished at Harriman's expense. Coville, as botanist of the United States Department of Agricul­ ture, exercised much influence in the establishment of new botanical institutions over the country. In 1893, as a Contribution from the United States National Herbarium,13 had been published the "Botany of the Death Valley Expedition." Congress had appropriated money in 1886 to study the geographic distribution of animals and in 1890 this had been extended to include plants. Accompanied by the San Bernardino botanists, the Parish brothers and W. G. Wright, Coville and his party traversed Cajon Pass, the San Bernardino Valley, and Mohave Desert, finally reaching Death Valley where from January 12 New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1902. See Introduction by C. Hart Merriam, editor (June xj, 1901), at p. xxv. 13 IV (issued November 29, 1893), Washington: Gov't Printing Office, 1893, pp. 1, 3, J> 10, 19, 33, 55, 233, 284, 301, 320, 361.

226

John Merle Coulter

to August a wide field in California was explored. The expedition was one of the most famous in history and acquainted Coville with xerophytic vegetation, the desert flora. 1,261 species and varieties were enumerated and a listing of 42 new species appeared in Coville's catalogue. Similar to the Harriman expedition, many preliminary re­ ports and articles were published in current periodicals and when the final report was issued, the Gazette reviewed it: This report not only deserves notice for its own sake, but also as represent­ ing the result of the first attempt by the government to conduct a biological survey from the botanical standpoint. The result certainly indicates the great advantage of having trained botanists as well as collectors in the field. . . . The characteristics and adaptations of the desert flora is a subject so full of interest that it cannot fairly be treated in our limited space. There is presented the source and distribution of moisture, the conservation of moisture, the tem­ perature and seasons of the regions, a classified list of the desert plants, and general and special adaptations. Under general adaptations the absence of trees is noted, and the size, spacing, and form of the characteristic shrubby vegetations in their relation to each, other and the struggle for moisture. The marked special adaptations are also to be found chiefly among the shrubs, as the plants "subjected to all the seasonal changes of many years." Naturally these special adaptations have to do with modifications for reducing transpira­ tion, and also rapid radiation, and quite a list of plants is given with the modifica­ tion in each case. This part of the report, however, deserves careful reading, and the whole stands as the most important one of the Contributions of the National Herbarium yet issued.14

This notable study had discovered that the vegetation of perennial shrubs and annual herbs revealed few adaptations for water storage. One would suppose that were the teleological explanations of adapta­ tions to environment absolutely true and completely universal, these desert plants would have developed organic components for storage of water in the dry, parched seasons to which the desert is subjected. All the evidence of protective devices exhibited in xerophytic vegeta­ tion, adaptations for checking transpiration and for retaining water, the development of armatures, thorns and spiny, needle-like pro­ tection against animals, was being thrown into question so far as the cause and reasons for their existence were concerned—both from the standpoint of adaptation to their native habitat and that of adjusting to a changed environment by forces such as wind, flood, carriage, and other sources of transplantation, and migration. De Vries had added to the growing uncertainty concerning the pre14 Botanical

Gazette.,

XIX (1894), 76.

Pure and Practical Science

227

vailing modification explanations in the evolutionary process, as to the exact nature of species origination. In his address at the Uni­ versity of Chicago on "The Evidence of Evolution," talking of his "Lamarck's evening primrose" experiments, he observed: The most interesting result which the observation and culture of this plant have brought to light is a fact which is in direct opposition to the current be­ lief. Ordinarily it is assumed that new species arise by a series of changes in which all the individuals of a locality are equally concerned. The whole group is supposed to be modified in a distinct direction by the agency of the environ­ mental forces. All individuals from time to time intercross, and are thereby assumed to keep equal pace in the line of modification, no single one being al­ lowed to go distinctly ahead of the others. The whole family gradually changes, and the consequence would be the old form disappears in the same degree as the new makes its appearance. This easy and plausible conception, however, is plainly contradicted by the new facts. There is neither a gradual modification nor a common change of all the individuals. On the contrary, the main group remains wholly unaf­ fected by the production of new species. . . .15

It was apparent that the floras, the plant societies, of all regions would have to be restudied in the light of the new knowledge. It was not enough now to send out professional botanical collectors and bring the living or dried specimens to the herbaria. Investigation must be initiated where the plant lives and forms its habits. Consequently, when Coville returned from his Death Valley expedition, he hoped to establish some center by which to study the western desert flora, that great unstudied expanse covering an estimated million square miles on the North American continent. Experiment station investiga­ tors, particularly of the University of California station under E. W. Hilgard, which had pioneered in soil study, were comparing plant relations to alkaline and other soils. Irrigation's influence on plant be­ havior in arid regions took much study. Coville and some others were thinking, however, in terms of other studies, plant studies in rela­ tion to climates, unusual substrata, and the great variable factors in­ fluencing growth, death, and reproduction. Daniel T. MacDougal had done some western exploration. While yet an assistant to Stanley Coulter at Purdue, he had left before the ends of the academic years and gone to do field work in northern Arizona where with Navajo blanket, tin cup, and beef extract jar, he spent the summer collecting. Again in 1898 he had returned to the 15

O f . cit.,

pp. 206-207.

228

John Merle Coulter

country near Flagstaff and done some experimentation at the western edge of the lava desert near the Little Colorado River, also, among other activities, climbing San Francisco Mountain. Transpiration, soil, air, and succulent plant body temperatures, observation of cli­ matic features, and other problems engaged his study. In 1902 he had gone to Arizona and the province of Sonora in Mexico to get cacti and xerophytes for the new New York Botanical Garden green­ houses and on June 2, Britton had written Bessey, ". . . the collections increase apace, more rapidly indeed than we can properly care for them. MacDougal brought four tons of Cactuses from Arizona and Sonora. . . ." There were other explorations, among them, Idaho ex­ aminations in the basaltic basins of the Clearwater and Palouse riv­ ers,16 the Nez Perce Reservation, Bitter Root Mountains, and in 1900 in northern Idaho, the Priest River Forest Reserve and other locali­ ties; in 1901 with the University of Montana Biological Expedition, explorations in the Mission Mountains, Flathead Lake, and other regions. MacDougal in these latter explorations had gone to areas almost unknown botanically. When the Carnegie Institution was established, therefore, Coville presented to its board of trustees a plan for a Desert Botanical Labo­ ratory. The board approved it, appropriating $8,000 for its establish­ ment and maintenance for one year and appointing him and MacDougal as an advisory board to begin inquiry as to its location. Accordingly, during January and February of 1903, MacDougal and Coville reconnoitered a wide area along the Mexican boundary be­ tween El Paso and Los Angeles, spending some time in Mexican ter­ ritory, and selected finally a site on a small mountain near Tucson, Arizona. Dr. W. A. Cannon was constituted the resident investigator. The Gazette carried the announcement that year that the new labora­ tory purposed "thorough investigation of physiological and morpho­ logical features of plants under the unusual conditions to be found in desert regions, with particular reference to the relations of the characteristic vegetation to water, light, temperature, and other fac­ tors." University of Arizona officials, the Arizona Agricultural Ex­ periment Station, the Tucson Chamber of Commerce, and many other 16 See "Report on a collection of plants made by J. H. Sandberg and assistants in northern Idaho in the year 1892," by John M. Holzinger, Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. Ill, no. 4, Nov. 23, 1895. River there referred to is Potlatch River.

Pure and Practical Science

229

agencies were very much pleased. As time would pass, the Pacific Coast Laboratory, maintained at Santa Ana, California, as a branch of the Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology of the United States Department of Agriculture, would be coordinated in investiga­ tion work with that of the Desert Laboratory, as would, in instances, that of the Stanford Marine Biological Station17 established at Carmel, California. North America had now a number of excellent biological labora­ tories devoted almost exclusively to research experimentation. The comparatively new Brooklyn Academy of Sciences and the Brooklyn Institute maintained, at least, in part, an experiment station situated on Long Island. The Subtropical Laboratory at Miami, Florida, the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, and a number of other representative institutions, in addition to the desert and other western laboratories, supplied America with facilities such that great groups of plant life—marine, desert, and semitropical—each had separate institutional experimentation. Not only these and the fresh water biological stations were available for researches in the temperate zones but facilities were being established in the large tropical areas— Cuba, Porto Rico, Panama, Central and South America, additional to the already established governmental agencies maintained in the tropics. Since 1900 Harvard University had maintained the Cienfuegos Botanical Gardens in Cuba in the interests of economic botany, specifically tropical research and sugar cane investigation. Plant dis­ ease studies were extending everywhere. Systematization of large un­ explored areas continued. Plant introduction for cultivation and breed­ ing purposes was sending men such as Walter T. Swingle, David Fairchild, 0. F. Cook, Mark Carleton, Ν. E. Hansen, H. F. Roberts, Thomas Kearney, and others, to all parts of the world.18 Research, a localized center conducted by a private American agency, was needed at Jamaica. In 1903 arrangements were completed. Britton wrote Bessey: The Government of Jamaica has decided to relinquish its use of the build­ ings at Cinchona. The experimental and botanical plantations are however to be maintained as before. The Surveyor General of Jamaica offered under 17 The Hopkins Seaside Laboratory of Leland Stanford University, located at Pacific Grove, near Monterey. 18The story of this work is beautifully told by David Fairchild in The World. Was My Garden. Travels of a Plant Exflorer (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1938).

230

John Merle Coulter

public advertisement on June 15, the group of buildings known as Bellevue and some land for rental. I have personally accepted the rental, for the purpose of saving the station for scientific purposes and with the plan of establishing there if possible, the long desired American botanical laboratory in the Amer­ ican tropics. At my request, Dr. MacDougal has recently visited Jamaica to arrange details of the lease and reports that the buildings and their furnishings are already comfortable and well adapted for the use of investigators. Dr. MacDougal and I decided to take these steps after consultation and correspondence with Professor Underwood, who spent the early part of the year in Jamaica in the study of ferns, and who is now in Europe; with Dr. Duncan S. Johnson, who has recently returned from Jamaica where he has been collecting materia] for embryological studies; with Mr. Wm. R. Maxon, who was with Professor Underwood there during the spring, and with Pro­ fessor Earle, who spent last November in Jamaica in mycological investiga­ tions. Dr. MacDougal was already familiar with the locality from his visit there with Professor Campbell in 1897, and we had discussed the topic with the Hon. Wm. Fawcett, Director of the public gardens and plantations of Jamaica, while he was in New York last autumn during the meeting of the Plant Breed­ ing Conference. . . . I may say that the Jamaican Government is heartily in sympathy with the enterprise and will cooperate to a very important extent, furnishing facilities for growing plants under the widely different climatic conditions offered by the gardens at Cinchona, Hope and Castleton; the use of the large botanical laboratory and herbarium at Hope; and the use of visitors tables in the labo­ ratory at Hope. . . .

That letter was written in August and in December Britton wrote again: . . . I take pleasure in stating that the group of buildings of the Colonial Government of Jamaica at the Cinchona Botanical Garden will be main­ tained as a botanical laboratory of the New York Botanical Garden under an agreement with the Colonial Government, and with the cooperation of the Department of Public Gardens and Plantations of Jamaica. Sufficient land for experimental purposes and for a nursery is included in the leasehold privileges. The buildings include a residence known as Bellevue House, three laboratories, two ranges of glass, and one or two small buildings suitable for lodgings. . . .

When in 1896 MacDougal had studied the mechanism and trans­ mission of impulses in Mimosa and other "sensitive plants," he had concluded that, "The entire problem, together with that of the de­ velopmental history of such highly specialized forms of 'sensitive­ ness' as those exhibited by Mimosa, must be followed to their solu­ tion in the tropical habitats of the plants." MacDougal in 1904 made a journey through the lower valley of the Colorado River and along the shore of the Gulf of California, ob­ taining a large collection of plants. During the course of this journey

Pure and Practical Science

231

he inspected the Desert Laboratory and was much pleased with evi­ dences of industry there. Returning to New York with specimens of the delta and desert flora, in June he was elected assistant director of the New York Botanical Garden. As such he aided in editing pub­ lications, directing the numerous explorations of the garden in Flor­ ida, the Bahamas, the Philippines, and many other localities, and so able did he prove that in 1905, while pursuing experiments con­ firmatory of the work of De Vries, he was elected director of the de­ partment of botanical research of the Carnegie Institution. With the collaboration of George Shull, by this time botanical investigator of the newly established Station for Experimental Evolution, MacDougal published Mutants and Hybrids of the Oenotheras,19 a Car­ negie Institution publication, and also Mutationsy Variations and Re­ lationships of the Oenotheras, likewise a Carnegie publication. Burton E. Livingston, another Chicago student, and for a time with the United States Bureau of Soils, received an appointment at the Desert Laboratory. For his paper, "Ionic Stimulation in Plants," he had been awarded the Walker prize by the Boston Society of Natural History. His temperature and rainfall coordinations, his soil studies, and other researches were to be of world-wide significance—instances of the growing relationship of botanical and agricultural experimental re­ search, work more detailed but as inspiring as the work of Edgar Nel­ son Transeau on rainfall evaporations. Volney T. Spalding resigned his position at the University of Michi­ gan to give his energies to investigation at the laboratory and, to­ gether with F. E. Lloyd, the desert institution, where MacDougal spent most of his time during the year, became one of the most promi­ nent of its kind to be found anywhere in the world. Part of each year, however, was given by MacDougal to directing horticultural and botanical investigation at other stations of the Carnegie Institution. And part was spent at the New York Botanical Garden continuing his studies on heredity and evolution. In 1906 MacDougal joined Rose20 at Mexico City. Mexico was still one of the favorite exploring grounds of American botanists. By 19 Anna Murray Vail and J. K. Small also aided in this work done exclusively in the New York Garden's laboratories and gardens. 20 A complete elaboration of Rose's journeys may be found in "Studies of Mexican and Central American Plants," Contr. from U.S. Nat. Herb., V, 3; XXIII, 7; bound under title "Mexican and Central American Plants."

232

John Merle Coulter

this time Rose was on his sixth famous journey into the Mexican areas, vast stretches of which, despite the great explorations of Pringle, Palmer, Purpus, and several other collectors, remained unexplored. During this year, Dr. Greenman spent some six weeks in Yucatan and adjacent Mexico collecting for the Field Museum. His taxonomic work, begun at the Gray Herbarium, in monographic studies of genera such as Senecio, was making of him one of the forthcoming prominent systematists. Dr. Trelease had also explored in Mexico, in the summer of 1903 gathering agave and other plants. Moreover, Britton and Rose, having completed a monograph on North American Crassulaceae, in the preparation of which incidentally Britton studied in England, were now undertaking a study of Cactaceae. Coulter had written Rose on August 25, 1904, commending the project of cactus studies: I am surprised to learn that you are at work upon the Cactaceae, but none the less glad to learn it. My own little dabbling in the group showed me that it needs an enormous amount of time, patience, and material; and I think that before you get through with it you will find that the Umbellifers were a picnic. I have on hand here a number of reputed types, at least they are the specimens from which descriptions of certain new species were drawn. I have lost all faith in the specific lines as we drew them then, and as Engelmann drew them. This was still further confirmed when I saw Schumann's splendid collection of living Cacti in Berlin last summer. Now that he is dead you only have to make your peace with Mrs. Brandegee. It seems to me that although the United States and border species have been fairly catalogued in our various publications, you will find in central and southern Mexico the key to the whole cactus situation; and the Mexican forms are bound to explain many of our United States outliers. In my judgment you are doing just the right thing to break the back of the group in Mexico itself, in which from the taxonomic view the cacti are in a dreadful mess. . . .

In 1905 Barnes went to Europe and returned to Chicago in Oc­ tober, after which Cowles and Coulter planned to follow across the Atlantic to spend six months in Europe. Coulter sailed October 7. In March 1906, Coulter, after his trip, wrote Rose that he seemed "to have lost all connection with everyone during the last six months." However, a trip to Europe was to Coulter always a stimulus to re­ search. On August 7, he wrote Rose, "Two of my staff, Dr. Chamber­ lain and Dr. Land will spend September in Mexico, at work chiefly among the cycads and among certain interesting pteridophyte ma­ terial." And on October 18, he added: I have yours of October 15 announcing your safe return from Mexico. I

Pure and Practical Science

233

am very glad to hear of it, and am sorry that you did not run across Barnes, Chamberlain, and Land, all of whom were browsing around the region to be reached from Vera Cruz. Chamberlain will be interested in knowing of your new locality for Dioon. . . . Chamberlain worked his Dioon in the neighbor­ hood of Jalapa.

To MacDougal, of course, Mexico was a land for desert plants, a land where one could "obtain a comprehensive idea of the vegetation of the arid areas of the continent with especial regard to the composi­ tion of the flora, the factors affecting distribution, and the general physiological behavior of the more specialized forms." Barnes also must have been interested in Mexican materials from the standpoint of physiology. Coulter told Rose that Chamberlain (and this went also for Land) had "no special interest in the taxonomic side of the work, and yet," said Coulter, "his studies are certainly of great serv­ ice to those interested in drawing specific lines." Thus was morphol­ ogy an aid in taxonomic research and, conversely, taxonomic explora­ tion was an aid in the ever widening field of morphological researches. A purely scientific approach was affecting both lines of botanical in­ vestigation, aided, of course, by the also ever widening study of the physiological behavior of plants. Objective study was transferring the emphasis from the inferential to the real. Gradually the concept of plant responses was displacing the older inferences of adaptations, and investigation was proceeding along lines of causal treatment. Early works of the century such as Goebel's Organografhie der Pflatvzen had relaxed the all too rigid and prevalent notions of morphology, elaborating the means by which experimental morphology might further both environmental and hereditary studies. D. H. Scott's Studies in Fossil Botany and A. C. Seward's great work on Fossil Plants, among others, had brought paleobotany into morphological service. Plant migration studies con­ ducted by Bessey and many others j ecological investigations enu­ merating both observational]y and experimentally the existence and causes of plant responses to environment, even classifying them 5 soil and phytogeographic studies including classification of physiognomic formations 5 in other words, studies of specific structure, causality, ex­ ternal and internal conditions, and the like, brought about great changes in the science. The theory of natural selection was brought into discussion. As one author said, ". . . while we can profitably re­ ject much of the theory of natural selection, and more especially the

234

John Merle Coulter

idea that adaptations have arisen because of their usefulness, yet the fact that living things must be adapted more or less well to their en­ vironment in order to remain in existence, may after all account for the widespread occurrence of adaptations in animals and plants."21 Some authors took even more extreme views. Coulter, adopting the view that natural selection acts somewhat like a sieve, determining what species shall survive and eliminating those that do not, found it for general phylogenetic purposes "a factor of enormous importance; for the species that survive determine, within limits, the species to be produced."22 However, Coulter also argued and believed that each instance of claimed adaptation should be subjected to rigid ex­ perimental investigation. This was one phase. How natural selection could really originate new characters was still another. "In brief," said Coulter, "by the botanist who has brought together a wide range of material, natural selection might be accepted as having variously arranged a group of established characters, and in this sense given rise to what we call species ; but it could not be accepted so easily as origi­ nating such new characters as distinguish great groups."23 In pure science, the so-called great groups were Coulter's interest. Their re­ lations in phylogeny absorbed much of his morphological study. It was one thing, he said, to note relations between species in small natural groups. It was quite another to determine experimentally and observationally the facts concerning the relations between the great groups, the gymnosperms and angiosperms, the bryophytes and pteridophytes, all the larger groups of plant study. To Coulter, species continued to be likened "to the individual waves that appear on the surface of a choppy sea ·, if so," he affirmed, "the deep-seated changes to which I refer, and which phylogeny makes so evident, may be likened to the great oceanic currents, whose movement and direction proceed with no relation to the choppy surface."24 Nor did he confidently believe that in matters such as plant breed­ ing, an instance of applied science, mathematical precision would be realized. When Liberty Hyde Bailey's Plant Breeding, Being Five 21 T. H. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation See the Gazette's review, XXXVII (1904), 66. 22 "The Theory of Natural Selection from the Darwinism (New York: Holt & Co., 1909), p. win, A.A.A.S., Baltimore (January 1909). 23 «The Theory of Natural Selection from the 2i Ibid., p. 71.

(New York: Macmillan Co., 1903). Standpoint of Botany," Fifty Years of 66. Centennial Address honoring Dar­ Standpoint of Botany," o f . c i t . , p. 61.

Pure and Practical Science

235

Lectures upon the Amelioration of Domestic Plants was published in its third edition, Coulter commented in the Gazette:26 As the author remarks, "these years may be said to have marked a transi­ tion between two habits of thought in respect to the means of the evolution of plants, from the point of view held by Darwin and the older writers to those arising from definite experimental studies in species and varieties." The chief practical results to plant breeding have been the recognition that not all variations in plants are of equal importance, and the belief that the offspring of hybridization follow definite laws. . . . It is a satisfaction that Professor Bailey has not been swept off his feet by the swelling tide of Mendelism. The wild prophecies that the application of Mendel's law will reduce plant breeding to a science of mathematic precision find him waiting for proof. . . .

Coulter saw not only the practical values derived from application of principles of pure science but also the large economies to be real­ ized. Plants enter very largely into man's experience. They reveal, said Coulter, fundamental laws of life. Plants demonstrate both in­ dividual and mass phenomena. Their study has not only educational values included in scientific training28 but immense benefits to be gained from disease control, adequate and more efficient food pro­ duction, useful new crops and vegetables, new medications, enlarged timber uses, conservation resources of the national domain, and un­ counted other benefits aesthetic and practical. By their factual study in paleobotany, not only was more ample interpretation of geologic history provided but knowledge was enlarged as to commodities such as coal, petroleum, oil, and other mineral resources. Indeed, knowl­ edge was gained of the earth itself—its formations, mountains, riv­ ers, mesas, deserts, and the host of physiographic phenomena—for no real study of plant life could be had without study of its soils and their texture. The development of disease and drought resistant strains in certain plants, the introduction of new plants from foreign lands either by breeding or transplanting, the discovery of cures for many plant ills thought once agents of God's will were greatly increasing the national wealth and contributing toward a higher standard of living. In his address, "Public Interest in Research,"27 Coulter il­ lustrated the need of still larger investment in research, pointing to an example of saving at little expense: 25

Botanical Gazette, XXXVII (1904), 471. See Coulter's "Botany as a Factor in Education," School Review, XII, no. 8 (Octo­ ber 1904), pp. 609-617, where these points are developed. 27 Of. cit., beginning at p. 306. 26

236

John Merle Coulter

When Moore28 was busying himself with the study of algae, he would have been characterized by the public as highly impractical, for not only were his studies apparently foreign to human interest, but that group of plants is pecul­ iarly within the domain of "pure science." However, when he was trans­ ferred to the Department of Agriculture, and began to apply his training, the problem of polluted water-supplies, which had cost empiricism called "prac­ tical science" many thousands of dollars in attempting to solve, met with al­ most immediate and brilliant solution. The same training has devised inocula­ tion for nitrogen-impoverished soils; and now the public regards Moore as a distinguished example of a scientific man who began to amount to some­ thing as soon as he abandoned "pure science." . . . The public must be taught that even research that merely means increased knowledge is immensely prac­ tical. . . .

Furthermore, science, and botany especially, taught nature study, not observation of insignificant matters by a medley of playful and imaginative devices—this Coulter abhorred—but nature study that was supplementary to a conventional education in interpreting na­ ture and life itself.29 Coulter, aware of the tremendous force of the teacher's example and personality on the student, strongly advocated research work on the part of the teacher.30 Not the kind better suited to the province of the trained investigator but the ex­ emplary sort which elucidated teaching. From the year 1898 when Coulter commenced publication of a natural history magazine for young people, Nature and Art·, in which he wrote such articles as "Forests," and "Plant Life in the Water," he had taken a pronounced interest in nature study and aided all national efforts promoting its work. His magazine lived but a short while—too many other re­ sponsibilities prevented its continuance. But since the years at Hano­ ver and the beginning of the Gazette, he had stimulated efforts in the direction of nature study. He remembered too well those walks over the beautiful Hanover hills to forget the forceful part nature study had had in introducing him to botany. And lastly in Coulter's estima­ tion science was a teacher of morality and religion. Science, said he, "is an attitude of mind peculiarly intolerant of sham or cant, and likely to brush aside unessentials . . . this comes not only from its training, but is also one of the things it has learned to admire in the life of Jesus Christ. I am afraid that it is little interested in dogmatic 28

G. T. Moore. 29 gee "Principles of Nature-Study," Nature Study Review, I (January 1 9 0 5 ) , 5 8 . 30 «The Influence of a Teacher's Research Work upon his Teaching of Biology in Secondary Schools," School Science ani Mathematics, V, 9 4 - 1 0 3 .

Pure and Practical Science

237

theology. . . . I make bold to say that it is immensely interested in morality and religion, and none appeals to it so strongly as do the morality and religion of Jesus Christ."81 Although George H. Shull's religious views were probably mature before he became one of Coul­ ter's students, Coulter's influence may have been reflected in Shull's review in the Gazette of Dr. J. P. Lotsy's volume of lectures on evo­ lutionary study by experimental methods, Vorlesungen uber Descendenz theorien mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der botanischen Seite der Frage, the reviewer commenting: He first considers the nature of knowledge, and the supposed conflict be­ tween science and religion, pointing out that evolution will not explain every­ thing, and that there is no conflict between religion and science except as either or both attempt to explain dogmatically the unexplainable. Both science and religion come to the same conclusion when traced to their limit, namely, that there is a fundamental mystery incapable of investigation because none of the possible alternatives is even conceivable to the human mind. . . .32

Coulter later wrote articles on science and religion.33 He answered such questions as "Is evolution anti-Christian?"34 saying: The conclusion of the whole matter is that since evolution is an established fact, it cannot be anti-Christian . . . it is just as clear that Christianity has a scientific basis in the nature of man . . . its results have been demonstrated as clearly as those of experimental evolution.

He now, like Gray, was one of evolution's greatest defenders and expositors. And more than ever, a devout Christian believer. Coulter, always the missionary in science, threw his energies even more deeply into his subject. In 1905 he brought out A Text-Book of Botany for Secondary Schools,35 an outgrowth of knowledge learned from teachers over the United States as to most effective methods of teaching botany, of being "of the greatest possible service in develop­ ing definite ideas as to the adjustment of the subject to the needs of the schools." Morphology and anatomy also received attention. In 1903 had appeared "The Phylogeny of Angiosperms,"36 series I, and in 1905 31 "Science as a Teacher of Morality," given before the Religious Education Associa­ tion, at its third annual convention. Biblical World n.s., XXV (January-June 1905), 32 Botanical Gazette, XLII (July-December 1906), 60. 443-449. s3cl Religion and Science," Religious Education, XVIII (August 1923), 223-229; "Science and Religion," Bib. World, LIV (July-November 1920), 339-347, 458-465, 561-567, last two parts lectures delivered at McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. si Christian Century, XXXVIII (December 8, 1921), no. 49; see also "Evolution and its Explanation" in the same magazine of the next year. 35 New York: Appleton and Co. 36 Dec. Pub. Univ. Chi., X, 191-194.

238

John Merle Coulter

"Gametophytes and Embryo of Torreya taxifolia."" Before a section of bio-geography organized at the Eighth International Geographic Congress meeting at Washington in 1904, Cowles had spoken on "The Remarkable Colony of Northern Plants along the Apalachicola River, Florida, and its Significance." His Florida trip of that year had brought him to the region of original discovery of Torreya, a taxoid conifer, or close ally of the yew. Coulter and Land took up its study embryologically—Agnes Robertson had studied "Spore Forma­ tion in Torreya Californka," the species found in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Cowles concluded that Torreya "is a north­ ern plant of the most pronounced mesophytic tendencies, and to be associated with such forms as the beech-maple-hemlock forms of our northern woods, our most mesophytic type of association." Coulter and Land dealt with the species' spermatogenesis, oogenesis, fertiliza­ tion, embryo, maturing of seed, and ended with a summary. Edward W. Berry, one of the ablest and most promising of the newer North American paleobotanists, exploring important formations in Atlantic coastal states, discovered in the Cretaceous of North Carolina what was believed a new species of Torreya.38 When in 1908 Coulter in­ vestigated "The Embryo Sac and Embryo of Gnetum Gnemon,"39 one of his conclusions was that the "endosperm encroaches upon the tissue of the nucellar beak with some irregularity, an irregularity which reaches its extreme expression in Torreya, with its so-called 'ruminated' seeds." Such investigations morphologically, seeking his­ torical and present relations and comparisons, were typical. This same year Coulter published in the Gazette on the "Relation of Megaspores to Embryo Sacs in Angiosperms."40 And in 1909 on "Evolutionary Tendencies among the Gymnosperms"41 in which he said: The investigation of gymnosperms has proceeded with such vigor that some adequate picture of the group freed from its details may now be obtained. . . . There is no better way in which to develop a clear picture of a great group than to select those facts of structure that enter into its general evolutionary history. . . . To prove the retention of an ancient feature demands the establishment of its phylogenetic continuity. . . . 37

Botanical Gazette, XXXIX (March 1905), 161. Botanical Gazette·, XLVI (July-December 1908), 140. 3s Ibid. (July 1908), pp. 43 S., based on material from the Philippine Islands and from British Guiana. 40 Ibid., XLV (June 1908), no. 6, pp. 361-366. il Ibid., XLVIII, no. z, pp. 81-97. 38

Pure and Practical Science

239

Coulter distinguished between the factual phylogenetic connections revealed by examination and the inferential phylogenetic conclusions drawn therefrom. Subjects dealt with were phylogeny, vascular anat­ omy, the leaf, the strobilus, the stamen, the ovule, the female gametophyte, the male gametophyte, and the embryo. Groups "differ as to the rapidity with which they respond to a general tendency to change, and it is this difference that helps to constitute groups," he said. Gametophytes and sexual organs, spore-producing agencies, in fact, the entire vascular system in paleobotany, had been studied with amazing energy in an effort to discover phylogenetic relations. No longer did they proceed, however, in "cell-by-cell studies of such structures as the embryo, gametophytes, sex organs, and sporangia 5 and upon the layer-by-layer studies of growing points." The origin of pteridophytes from bryophytes had been discredited as a theory. Study had gone beyond reproductive structures. Much other evidence had accumulated, derived largely by study of vegetative structures. A great discovery had taken place in gymnosperms—that of an ex­ tinct fern-like group called Cycadofilicales and knowledge of these had become "remarkably complete." Anatomical investigation had found swimming sperms in the cycads and Gingko tree and the strob­ ilus of the Bennettitales. Supplemented by morphological work in almost every genus, a large amount of learning of gymnosperm his­ tory had been established since Coulter and Chamberlain's publica­ tion in 1901, The Morfhology of Spermatofhytes, Part I, Gymnosferms. Similarly, subsequent investigation in angiosperms had upset theories of their origin-—"those who are most insistent upon establish­ ing a phylogenetic connection between Gnetales and angiosperms claim only that they are lines of parallel development from a com­ mon hypothetical ancestry," said Coulter.42 Consequently, in 1909 there appeared The Morfhology of Sf ermatof hytes, Part II, Angiosferms, 4,3 and in 1910, with Chamberlain, Morfhology of Gymno44 sferms. Edward C. Jeffrey again reviewed the work and, referring to it as "a masterly treatment of our present knowledge of the gymno42 Quotations from and paragraph based on "Recent Advances in Vascular Anatomy," of. cit., concluding portions of address. 43 New York: Appleton & Co. χ and 348 pp. 113 cuts in text. 44Chicago: University of Chicago Press, xi and 45 S pp. 462 cuts in text.

240

John Merle Coulter

sperms," said that it "resumes in a particularly clear and happy way, from every standpoint, the evidence as to their structure, affinities, history, and evolution. It is vastly creditable to American morphol­ ogy, and the statement may safely be made that there is nowhere in existence, at the present time, a general account of the group which is so judicial and authoritative, without being dull, hazy, or uninter­ esting." Jeffrey referred to the copious treatment of "fossil gymnosperms" arranged according to evolutionary sequence. Of course, con­ sideration was given to Cycadofilicales and Pteridospermae as groups of gymnosperms which had "clearly emerged from the paleobotanical limbo only within the decade" and to the summary of the general principles of fern anatomy. "Next follow," said Jeffrey, "the Bennettitales, a group which American science has done so much to rescue from oblivion.... The treatment of the Cycadales is particularly full, as might be expected, in view of the special interest of the Chicago laboratories in the group. . . . This chapter must rank as perhaps the best in the volume. The Ginkgoales occupy about 3 5 pages. . . . The Coniferales naturally receive more attention than any of the older gymnosperms, since they are the prevailing naked-seeded plants of our epoch, and moreover are the exclusive representatives of the phylum in temperate climates." Comment was made on the conclusion of a coijimon ancestry between the Gnetales and angiosperms and on the seeming tolerance of the view that angiosperms and Gnetales offshot from cycadophyte stock. "While entertaining the possibility of a Bennettitean origin of the Gnetales," said the reviewer, "the authors at the same time suggest a possible derivation from the Coniferales. This is perhaps a more fruitful hypothesis, which may be justified when we possess some real knowledge of the past history of the group." Seward's, Penhallow's, and Jeffrey's recent suggestions for regrouping of Coniferales had been discussed by Coulter and Cham­ berlain and the reviewer considered their discussion, arguing for morphological hypotheses based on evolutionary facts of more than a single kind.45 Some argument may be made for the position that with the publication of Coulter and Chamberlain's Morfhology of Gymnosperms the high point in Coulter's life had been reached. Bota­ nists received the work with the highest praise possible. But there had been sadness for Coulter. On February 24, 1910, 45

Botanical Gazette, L (July-December 1910), 4.66.

Pure and Practical Science

241

Barnes died from an accidental fall. A year earlier, during the sum­ mer, the deaths of Jane Loring Gray, Dr. Gray's wife, and Caroline Crowe Coulter, Coulter's mother had occurred. On August 5, 1909, Barnes had written Farlow: I have just received your letter of August 2, telling me of the death of Mrs. Gray. I am indeed sorry that I did not have an opportunity of seeing her again, for I expect to be in Cambridge next Christmas, and I hoped that I should be able to see her once again. She lived to a good old age though, and I shall re­ member her with great affection. I am sending your letter to Professor Coulter who is still in this country, having finally been prevented, after three attempts, from going abroad. The last delay was due to the serious illness of his mother which ended in her death July 5. She was eighty-four, I believe. At present Dr. Coulter is at Winona Lake, Indiana, but will go about mid-August to Chautauqua to give a course of lectures, and thence to Winnipeg for the British Association meeting.

On January 1, 1909, Coulter had begun a six months vacation. He and Mrs. Coulter had first gone to Hanover to see Mrs. Coulter's mother and thence to Washington where Coulter and Rose prepared the Sufflement to the Monografh of the North American UmbelUferae, which was published as a United States National Herbarium Contribution.46 By June Dr. and Mrs. Coulter were in Lafayette, In­ diana, where Caroline Crowe Coulter lay seriously ill. Coulter, to divert his attention, worked on citations for Aven Nelson's edition of Coulter's Rocky Mountain Manual and the Umbelliferae Supple­ ment proof. On July 26, from Winona Lake, he wrote Rose: "Mrs. Coulter & I had a very severe experience at Lafayette for three weeks, ending in the death of my mother. We took her to Hanover, where her father & mother & her eleven brothers & sisters are all buried. Then we came to Winona for a breathing spell & to readjust our plans. We are so comfortable here that we expect to remain until my week's engagement at Chautauqua, beginning Aug[ust] 16. What we shall do with the rest of August & with September I do not know as yet...." Coulter and his family spent part of the time "on the north­ ern lakes." October 4, he wrote again, "We have just settled in a new house (5532 Monroe Ave.), and the Autumn Quarter at the University opened yesterday. Both things are keeping us busy, but it is good to be back at my desk." Then came the tragic loss of Barnes and on March 1 he wrote Farlow: 4eXXI,

441-451.

2

plates.

242

John Merle Coulter

Mrs. Barnes and I appreciate your letter thoroughly, and we want to thank you for it. Professor Barnes was not ill, but in fine physical condition. His death was due to a fall on the ice, his head striking in such a way as to produce a fatal fracture. Accidents seem terribly unnecessary, but perhaps not more so than most sickness. Yes, his place in the Dep[artmen]t, & on the Gazette, & in the botanical fellowship here will be impossible to fill. We can fill up in amount, but never in kind.

Barnes's place was taken by William Crocker who had received his Ph.D. degree from the university in 1906. Recently he had been making studies of the germination of seeds and spores, in which he established that many seeds, particularly those of arid regions, de­ velop a testa so difficult to break through by the embryo that an "overadaptation" is evident, and an exception to the operation of the adaptive principle of selection seemed clear.47 Crocker took hold of Barnes's work in able fashion and became Coulter's great helpmate botanically. A great future lay before Crocker and Coulter was to have a share in helping make that future. The impress of Barnes's work on the science of North American botany was definite and lasting. Without doubt, he had been one of the great originators and developers of plant physiology in North America. He was known as a world-wide authority in this subject and he also stood as an authority on bryophytes, from the standpoints of both taxonomy and morphology. His influence in developing the Gazette to a place ranking with the leading botanical publications of the world is incalculable. Only recently the Gaxette had determined on policies of "a more rigid selection of original papers, a greater compression of these papers in text and illustrations, a franker ex­ pression of opinion in reviews, and the abandonment of 'news.'" Barnes had handled most of the details of administration of both the Gazette and, in great part, the department at Chicago. Coulter was able as an organizer and, having a great feeling for the application of science, was more the visionary, conceiving and interpreting large principles in botany. However, he was not eminently practical. Cer­ tainly he was not a technician in science. But Barnes, while not a great laboratory man, foresaw methods and principles for the ap47 See "The Theory of Natural Selection from the Standpoint of Botany," o f . c i t . , p. 62, where Coulter's observations on this work are contained.

Pure and Practical Science

243

plication of experimental science. Had he lived, he doubtless would have become one of the great botanists of all time. In 1909 Coulter had been elected to membership of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1911 he became a member of a committee to determine if in the Bureau of Plant Industry opportunities for research were as untrammeled as they should be. In 1914 he became botanical editor of the board appointed to publish the Academy's Pro­ ceedings. Already Coulter was a member of the Washington Acad­ emy of Sciences. Membership in the Chicago Academy of Sciences was also maintained. The university's comparatively new laboratory garden, located on four acres near the corner of Washington Park and the Midway Plaisance, and the also almost new experimental glass house announced about the same time, added duties. Barnes, how­ ever, doubtless had gotten these well under way before his death. Coulter realized that in time the work of the Gazette would require another editor to serve with him. Nevertheless, not until 1926 did he select another—Henry Chandler Cowles. In 1908 Coulter had read before the Twenty-first Educational Conference of the Academies and High Schools in Relation with the University of Chicago a paper on "What the University Expects of the Secondary School."48 As late as 1917, he commented to Farlow on the teaching of science in the secondary schools, "In our general region at least, [it] is in an exceedingly chaotic condition, brought on by peda­ gogues. ..." The methods used in the teaching were, moreover, "op­ posed by practically every university scientific man." Coulter believed the great function of the secondary schools to be teaching while the equally great province of the university was research. Teaching re­ quired "simplicity and directness in the presentation of subjects." And subjects must not be imitative of university courses but constructive and initiated to meet the needs of high school students. Furthermore, this was not what the university expected—it was what the university ought to expect. Universities should be no longer "great store-houses of educational precedents, which have descended from mediaeval times, when there were very few subjects organized for study, and these few held little or no relation to the problems of intelligent liv­ ing." The university had the right to expect good teaching in the sec­ ondary schools and well prepared students. But, at the same time, it 48

The School Review, XVII (February 1909), no. 2, pp. 73-84.

244

John Merle Coulter

should be less concerned about the raw material that came to it from the school and more concerned about its own finished product. Grad­ uation requirements were after all more important than that "ghost of a dead past" that stalks the educational banquets of many universi­ ties "that rather pride themselves upon being haunted"—the en­ trance examination. The university should expect adequate intel­ lectual preparation but not that based on methods which transferred its elementary course methods to the schools. Universities were "rec­ ognized as the greatest opportunity for research" and high schools "must be recognized as the greatest opportunity for teaching.'''' The two must become equal "in public esteem, in scholarly esteem, and in income." The American school system is definitely a modern in­ stitution. Always Coulter during this period envisioned the great values to be realized from research. In 1907 he published in Educational Bi­ monthly on "The Scientific Spirit,"49 and in 1908 in Normal Educa­ tion, "Some Problems in Education."50 In 1909, with John G. Coul­ ter and Alice Jean Patterson as coauthors, appeared Practical Nature Study and Elementary Agriculture·, a manual for use of teachers and normal students.51 Research, however, preoccupied his mind. In experimentation, questions such as origin of species by muta­ tion, fundamental investigations of unit characters, and a wide range of problems were opening up. The new morphology was suggesting new placement of plant groups—for example, willows formerly given a low rank among dicotyledons seemed because of their vascular struc­ ture to be entitled to higher rank in the series. In field service, ecology and paleobotany were tearing former concepts apart. At the celebra­ tion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Indiana Academy of Sciences, Coulter spoke on "Recent Progress in Botany": The work of Wieland in revealing the rich deposits of these [mesozoic cycads] in the Black Hills region and in sectioning the cones with admirable skill and patience is well known. For the last five months Wieland has been exploring southern Mexico, and has discovered a section 2,000 feet in thick­ ness that is packed with the remains of the peculiar group, making it un­ doubtedly the greatest deposit of these plants in the world. It was thought once that the monocotyledons were the more primitive angiosperms, and that the dicotyledons were the more recent. We feel assured now 49 I, 293-299· 51 New York:

50XXIII,

D. Appleton & Co.

1-16.

Pure and Practical Science

245

that the monocotyledons have been drived from dicotyledons for every mono­ cotyledon starts with the vascular system of a dicotyledon. . . .52

Coulter was a prodigious worker and a lover of writing. At a Uni­ versity of Chicago convocation, he elaborated a favorite theme, "Prac­ tical Science," published in the university magazine and Sciencehi of which Bessey was now botanical editor. He wrote botanical articles for the New International Encyclopedia.54 In 1911, with Land, was pub­ lished in the Gazette "An American Lepidostrobus,"55 and alone he analyzed "testimony in reference to the morphological nature of the endosperm of angiosperms," drawing five divisions of conclusions.58 The next year, for Popular Science Monthly, he depicted in simple language "The History of Gymnosperms,"57 illustrating group re­ lations by diagram. Coulter could write effectively both in popular and scholarly style. And he was willing to make scientific work known to the people by the popularization of science. Biology, including botany, was dedicated to man's service. Science had to be brought from second and third floor laboratories and re­ mote fields to men's parlors and reading rooms. Once the practical values of science were shown, men shared their wealth for scientific advancement. Contemplate Coulter's vision coordinating work of school, church, and science, illustrated in his article, "The Religious and Character Value of the Curriculum."58 Religion has been defined as a sense of obligation that expresses itself in service, and character is an embodiment of religion. . . . Biology differs in no way from the other sciences in the attitude of mind it develops, and this at­ titude is by far the most valuable result of all scientific training. . . . The Religious Education Association could undertake no more important propaganda than to join with organizations already established but not as broadly inclusive, in proclaiming the doctrine of eugenics, and in pressing upon parents, teachers, physicians, and churches the duty of preaching the gospel of personal purity and the elimination of any such thing as hereditary taint. It is in such way that biology may be used in the service of religion and in the strengthening of character. . . .

The vision of men such as Coulter was that of great men. 52 Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. igog, 1910, pp. I O I - I O J , at p. 101. In "Recent Achievements in Paleobotany," Science., n.s. LX (September 12, 1924.), G. R. Wieland tabulates the significant accomplishments in paleobotany from about 1894-1924. 53 Univ. Chi. Mag., II, 189-200; Science, n.s., XXXI, 881-889. 54 New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., Ill, 342-346; 2nd ed., pp. 579-582. 55 Botanical Gazette, LI (June 1911), 449-453. 58 Ibid., LII (November 1911), 380 ff. 57 LXXX (January-June 1912), 197-203. 48 ReLig. Ed., VI (December 1911), 365.

CHAPTER XI THE ALL-INCLUSIVE SCIENCE

O Ν F E B R U A R Y 19, 1908, Charles E. Bessey addressed a letter

to Farlow: I am sending you under separate cover a copy of a paper of mine,—"A Synopsis of Plant Phyla," upon which I have been working for many years. I have long been convinced that the phyletic arrangements of plants is what we must strive to attain, and this paper is an attempt to formulate in a pro­ visional way what seem to be the great phyla of the vegetable kingdom. Of course it will be easy to find glaring errors in it,—I can do that,—but still I hope it may serve to direct the attention of botanists to this mode of approach­ ing the problem of general taxonomy.

July 23 there followed another letter: Five or six weeks ago, you wrote me a very pleasant letter in regard to my "Synopsis of Plant Phyla" and also my paper on Taxonomy. I am glad to have these words of approval from you, and with regard to the latter I am quite sure that the results of the movement started last winter in Chicago will ultimately be good. We have had quite too much of the notion that any slight difference which a sharp-eyed botanist may discover is worthy of being described as specific. I am not a taxonomist myself in the sense of describing species. The number of species that I have described can be counted upon one's fingers. I have always had the feeling that the idea of species must be kept practically what it was conceived to be by such men as Torrey, Gray, Bentham, Hooker, etc. These men, it seems to me, had about the right measure of the species idea. Many of the later descriptive botanists have conceived of the species as a much smaller taxonomic unit. In this I am sure they are quite wrong. If we make too many species, none of us can make use of them in our every day work. The conception of species is after all merely for convenience, and so when they are conceived to be too small and too difficult of separation, they may defeat the purpose of taxonomy. I have been very busy since the close of the University a little more than a month ago, as I have been giving lectures in the University Summer School. . . . I hope to get away to the Colorado mountains some time next week for a little rest, and a little opportunity of scrambling up and down the steep moun­ tain sides.

Many honors had come to Bessey. Again he had served as acting chancellor of the university. Together with a service in 1908 at Ne­ braska and a service at Iowa Agricultural in 1882, Bessey served four times as president or chancellor of his university. In addition to his presidency of the Botanical Society of America, he had served as president of the American Microscopical Society, president of the

The All-inclusive Science

247

Society for the Promotion of Agricultural Science, president of the Wild Flower Preservation Society, president for several terms of both the Iowa and Nebraska Academies of Science, and, spread among his memberships, he had served offices as vice-president and secretary. Charge of the division of vegetable pathology of the United States Department of Agriculture had been offered to him. A movement in 1906 urged his appointment as secretary of the Smithsonian Institu­ tion. At the Washington meeting in December 1911 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Bessey served with dis­ tinction an appropriate honor conferred on him at Minneapolis before his great and useful career ended. He had been elected its president and for his retiring address delivered at Cleveland he chose the sub­ ject, "Some of the Next Steps in Botanical Science."1 In studies of plant distribution and migration, including as they did plant relation studies, he had gone on exploring trips to Yellowstone National Park, the Colorado Mountains, to nearly all regions of botanical importance in Nebraska, and many other western localities, not to mention his journey with his son Ernst through the Caucasus lands and other "botanical paradises" in Europe and the Far East in 1903. Ernst Bessey became a botanist of much promise, being connected with the United States Department of Agriculture serving in Washington and at Miami, and then went into teaching at Louisiana State University and later Michigan State College. Bessey, Farlow and Coulter constituted an eminent trio in the his­ tory of North American botany. Their paths were dissimilar and yet similar in that all three were interested in morphology. Taxonomy was also a subject of enduring interest for all three, although no one of them was known only as a systematist, unless one regards Farlow's and Bessey's great work in the lower plant groups as solely systematic which it was not. Farlow stands as one of the greatest botanists which America has produced—indeed, William Albert Setchell, one of his biographers, regarded him as the "Nestor of American botanists"2— and certainly as to teaching and research work both creative and in established channels this estimation was correct. Farlow's noteworthy Bibliographical Index of North American Fungi, published in 1905 by the Carnegie Institution, was regarded by the Gazette as "one of 1 Published 2See

in Science·, n.s., XXXVII, no. 94.0 (January 3, 19x3) ; also as a reprint. Memoirs, XXI (National Academy of Sciences), no. 4, p. χ8.

248

John Merle Coulter

the most serviceable tasks ever undertaken in the interests of Ameri­ can systematic mycology." Similarly important were the notable monographic studies of Robinson and Fernald at the Gray Herbarium and the useful compilations and studies of North American trees and shrubs by Charles Sprague Sargent at the Arnold Arboretum. The great Silva of North America had been completed in 1902. Most useful and able state floras were issuing from various sections of the United States, in the West, for example, Η. M. Hall's "Studies on California Plants," Willis Linn Jepson's A Flora of Western Middle California, Robinson's "Flora of the Galapagos Islands," Setchell's and N. L. Gardner's "Algae of Northwestern America," Alice East­ wood's A Handbook of the Trees of California, Jepson's The Trees of Calif Ornia1 Charles V. Piper's "Flora of the State of Washington," a United States Herbarium contribution treating the subject both taxonomically and ecologically, and others, manifested the commend­ able energy being displayed by botanists. Edward Lee Greene had left the West and gone to Washington. Regardless of criticism, Greene had accomplished much toward the knowledge of western botany. Bessey thought so and said so when Greene's position at the university was offered him. Greene was among the first of American botanists to insist on thorough study of plants in the field. Britton's immense North American Flora project was still in process of com­ pilation and publication. Botany was still North American to many botanists j but to still larger numbers of botanists it was international in scope and never had exploration and systematization gone further than at this time. Not only was this so in taxonomy but it was likewise true in ecology. In 1907 Cowles took a party of twenty-two students to Oregon and then Alaska. Such work as this and that of Whitford in the Philippines were typically illustrative of this great period in botany. After the Vienna Congress of 1905, the Third International Congress was held in 1910 at Brussels and the work of the section on nomenclature was most important, settling many undecided and troublesome questions. Botany was building a durable foundation in taxonomy as well as ecology. Coulter, however, did not concentrate on taxonomy or ecology. Cowles was doing a splendid and superior work in ecology. Nor did he worry about physiology. A department that could produce two students who could win the Walker prize—Livingston, and William

The All-inclusive Science

249

Burnett McCallum3—despite the great loss of Barnes, could continue effective work, and did. Coulter received Bessey's A Synopsis of Plant Phyla with much interest and wrote in the Gazette·. Professor Bessey has been working for many years upon a natural (evolu­ tionary) classification of plants. . . . He recognizes fifteen great "phyla," and presents a diagram to illustrate their relationship. It is impossible to give any adequate conception of the scheme, for it is very compactly presented and in­ cludes an enormous mass of details.*

Coulter's attitude toward Bessey's new work seems to have been objective—it is rather certain that Coulter did not altogether agree— however, the two remained the firm friends they always had been. And in 1913 Bessey invited Coulter to dedicate the new Plant In­ dustry hall at the University of Nebraska. Coulter did not believe in either the extreme of pure science or that of applied science. In 1909, before a joint session of the American Federation of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Section L of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he had read a paper5 in which he said: The ideal certainly lies somewhere between these two extremes. There must be a rational combination of pure and applied science. Perhaps, the combina­ tion, expressed in the figure of a landscape, should be a background of pure science, against which its applications could stand out. . . .

Problems differ in city and rural communities, in manufacturing and agricultural centers, so that varying solutions must be found "just as there must be several manuals to cover the flora of the United States." However, the day when higher education was afraid of the useful was passed both in universities and secondary schools. Ac­ cordingly, for his address as retiring president of the Illinois Academy of Sciences, Coulter took as his subject, "The Problems of Plant Breeding."6 It was a thorough address, doubtless well received, and it is said that its context became the foundation for his volume, Fun­ damentals of Plant Breeding,7 published in 1914. Nevertheless, how­ ever much this subject interested Coulter—no matter how proficient 3 The thesis title was "Physiological analysis of the phenomena of regeneration of plants." McCallum went in 1907 to the University of Arizona as professor of plant physiology. i Botanical Gazette, XLV (January-June 1908), 344. 5 "IV Botany," School Science and Mathematics, IX (1909), 362 fi. 6 Trans, of Illinois Acad. Sci., IV (1911), publ. Jan. 25, 1912, pp. 28 if. 7 New York and Chicago: D. Appleton & Co., xiv and 347 pp. 109 cuts.

250

John Merle Coulter

he later became in his knowledge of this branch of botany—at this time this was not Coulter's field. His small volume, Evolution of Sex in Plants,8 issued the same year, was a much better received book and was much more closely allied to his life studies in morphology. Coulter continued to advance the interests of applied science and, after his address on "The Problems of Plant Breeding" delivered in 1911, chose for his subject at the University of Nebraska dedication, "Practical Science."9 However, by 1913, the year of the Nebraska speech, the public clamor for extension of applied science had become so manifest that Coulter felt called upon to warn against the danger of displacing pure with applied science not only in the primary and secondary schools— technicians knew there was little pure science of value there—and the swiftly enlarging tendency was threatening research work in the uni­ versities. Economic botany had had a speedy and rapid rise. Coulter said, notwithstanding, ". . . the public is in danger of gazing at the practical electric light and forgetting the impractical power house " He commended the fact that now there was "a science of plant in­ dustry as distinct from a -practice of plant industry." He was glad that the university was "no longer conceived of as a scholastic cloister, a refuge for the intellectually impractical} but as an organization whose mission is to serve society in the largest way." But, said he, "When education in science becomes a series of prescriptions to be followed without understanding and without perspective, it will train appren­ tices rather than intelligent thinkers." Admitting that the difference between pure and applied science is largely one of intention—in real­ ity, all science is one, and practical—between the source of energy and the point of application, Coulter said, "There may be much ma­ chinery, and perhaps none of it can be eliminated from the final esti­ mate of values." He dedicated the building "to practical science in its largest sense; a practice based on science, and a science that illumi^ nates and extends practice. And beneath it all is that finest of all im­ pulses, the impulse to serve the community...." In 1910, at the annual session of the National Academy of Sciences, Coulter presented a paper, "The Vascular Plate and Cotyledons of 8

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ix and 140 pp. 46 cuts in text. Delivered June 10, University Farm. Published Lincoln, Nebraska: University Press, October 1913. 9

The All-inclusive Science

251

Gymnosperms." As excellent as his addresses and papers of this period were, they did not constitute his most valuable contribution to botany, nor to science. Many would say that the appearance of volume I of Coulter, Barnes, and Cowles's eminent A Text Book of Botany, 10 dealing with morphology and physiology, was the event of single importance most significant. Ganong wrote for the Gazette, reviewing the work:11 It has been many a day since any botanical-educational work has been anticipated with such interest as the book before us. Entirely new, prepared by three sympathetic co-workers, all eminent both as investigators and teach­ ers, elaborated under the facilities and freedom provided by one of our most progressive universities, the appearance of such a work is naturally an educa­ tional event. The result, in greater part, is now before us, and the remainder is promised for the very near future. Of the three parts, Part I, of 296 pages, is Morphology, by Professor Coulter. It is devoted wholly to the description and illustration of the natural groups from Thallophytes to Spermatophytes, the axial idea of the treatment being the morphological evolution of structures. The title Morphology, there­ fore, is to be read as Special rather than General Morphology. . . . If there is anywhere a better account of the groups, and of the morphological evolution, of plants, it is not known to the reviewer; and it will take a more intensive knowledge of these subjects than he possesses to detect any material fault or error therein. The illustrations, no less than 618 in number, are almost wholly new to text books....

Volume II, containing Part III on ecology by Cowles, appeared in 1911. Cowles elaborated in his address, delivered in 1910, as retiring president of the Association of American Geographers, "The causes of Vegetative Cycles."12 The concept of life cycles was an outgrowth of the study of life histories, an effort made toward the consolidation of morphological, cytological, and ecological studies. Physiology, of course, since it constituted the basis of advanced ecological work, and anatomy, since its objectives in research were bound up with mor­ phology, were involved. Botany was becoming essentially a synthetic study. One, to investigate problems in any of its branches, had to have a knowledge of each study and their interrelationships. Cowles de­ scribed the vegetative cycles as follows: 10 For Colleg-es and Universities. New York, Cincinnati & Chicago: American Book Co., viii and 484 pp. 699 cuts in text. 11Botanical Gazette, LI (January-June 1911), 67. 12 Botanical Gazette, LI (January-June 1911), 161 ff.

ΐζΐ

John Merle Coulter

The work of [the] past decade has shown most clearly that there are cycles of vegetation, which are comparable precisely to cycles of erosion; in each there is a period of youth, which is characterized by vigor of development and by rapidity of change; in each there is a period of maturity, and finally one of old age, which is characterized by slowness of transformation and by ap­ proach to stability, or at least to equilibrium. At the close of the vegetative cycle there is no such universal feature as the base level of the physiographer, since the final vegetative aspect varies with the climate, and hence is called a climatic formation. . . . The systematic exploitation of developmental or dy­ namic plant geography presupposes the establishment of the principles of dy­ namic geology and organic evolution. . . .

Formation and succession were two fundamental concepts in ecol­ ogy. In fact, so definite was their establishment that herbaria had been so arranged in instances. In 1904 Clements had written on "Forma­ tion and Succession Herbaria,"13 an idea which, said Cowles, had been suggested by Drude. Succession herbaria illustrated the dynamics of plant formation and from studies of regional plant successions had emerged such articles as William S. Cooper's "Alpine Vegetation in the Vicinity of Long's Peak,"14 an examination of the topography, physiography, and vegetation, both present and historical of a re­ nowned mountainous region 5 W. W. Robbins's "Climatology and Vegetation in Colorado,"15 showing the importance of climatic factors; Henry Allen Gleason's "A Botanical Survey of the Illinois River Valley Sand Region,"16 a survey of certain waste sandy areas; Edgar N. Transeau's "Successional Relations of the Vegetation about Yar­ mouth, Nova Scotia,"17 a study of physiographic, marine, and other associative lines, tracing transitional stages; Volney M. Spalding's "Distribution and Movements of Desert Plants,"18 which had shown that well-defined successions were to be found in xerophytic areas as elsewhere; Charles C. Adams's "An Ecological Survey of Isle Royale, Lake Superior,"19 a point of strategic interest since there was situated a boundary zone between two great life areas, the northeastern conifer forest region, and the eastern deciduous forest area; in fact, studies 13 University of Nebraska Studies, 4: 27 pp., reviewed Botanical Gazette, XL (JulyDecember), 394. 14 Botanical Gazette, XLV (January-July 1908), 319. 15 Ibid., XLIX (January-June 1910), 256 ίϊ. ie Ibid., XLIV (July-December 1907), 238. 17 Ibid., XLIX (January-June 1910), 31S. (Publ. Plant World, XII, p. 271). 18 Carnegie Institution publication, reviewed in the Gazette, XLIX (January-June 1910), 382. 19 State Biological Survey of Michigan report, reviewed in the Gazette, LI (JanuaryJune 1911), 232.

The All-inclusive Science

253

of oceanic coastal areas, beach regions of lakes, large prairie lands, mountainous regions, practically all of the general and exceptional areas in type were studied. The classic and historic pine barrens of New Jersey were reexplored on the basis of ecology. There, Torrey, Gray, LeConte, and others had explored these lands of once excep­ tional interest for taxonomy. Taxonomy was not displaced. Its work, as Coulter believed it should be, continued in the large herbaria. Sys­ tems of nomenclature varied. Indeed, the recently formed Connecti­ cut Botanical Society's Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of Connecticut Growing without Cultivation20 accorded in sequence of families and nomenclature with the seventh edition of Gray's Manual and also treated synonymy, habitat, distribution, and citation of exsiccatae. But it was not an ecological study, though its materials would be used by George Elwood Nichols in his forthcoming great ecological examinations to be made in Connecticut regions. Botany was becoming, as Coulter and all the great botanists wished it to be, a synthetic science in which the knowledge of one branch would con­ tribute to the knowledge of all branches. Cowles in ecology, however, was not a teleologist. In his second volume of Coulter, Barnes, and Cowles's A Text Book of Botany for colleges and universities, was manifested, said Ganong, its reviewer, "a systematic antagonism to everything Darwinian," going even so far as to say that Cowles was not an evolutionist. Ganong interpreted Cowles's idea of "mechanical causation," that is, plant responses to mechanical, physical, or chemical influences or causes, as complete op­ position to all "historical or causative adaptation." "This very book," said Ganong, "seems to the reviewer to show that whatever the de­ ficiencies of the adaptation-selection hypothesis, it still has to its credit a notable balance of reasonableness in comparison with the proposed substitute."21 Cowles may have been somewhat too dogmatic in his opposition. That he and his work, however, had been completely mis­ interpreted on this point is evident. What Coulter and Cowles in­ sisted on was the accumulation of scientific data based on experimenta­ tion and not inference, to discover what instances were illustrations of adaptations and what were not. They did believe that the terms, 20 State Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. report, reviewed by Greenman in the Gazette, L (July-December 1910), 231. 21 Botanical Gazette, LIV (July-December 1912), 73.

254

John Merle Coulter

plant responses to examined causative factors, were more in harmony with the facts. Plant life to Coulter and Cowles became more and more the study of stimuli and responses, superimposed upon the great studies of heredity. The concept of the life cycle invaded not only ecology but research in cytology and morphology. Studies in the development and anat­ omy of various plant life units, the great groups as well as the more restricted divisions of the taxonomist, had revealed a susceptible cycli­ cal interpretation. The work of John Henry Schaffner, Coulter's student in the early years at the University of Chicago and later chairman of the department of botany at Ohio State University, serve as illustration, for Schaffner's work in North American life cycle plant studies was creatively original. Since 1899 Schaffner had studied ecological relations in the vegetation of both Ohio and Kansas regions. Since 1896, when with Coulter and the important first group of Chicago graduate students he had begun life history studies in Sagittaria and Lilium, he had pursued investigations relating to plant reproduction and genetics. Studies in the nature of the reduction divi­ sion and related phenomena; in chromosome reduction in the microsporocytes of Lilmm tigrinum and Agave virginka; in sexual and nonsexual generations; in the life cycles of an angiosperm, a gymnosperm, a heterosporous and a homosporous pteridophyte; physiolog­ ical studies in growth, self-pruning, and the like; continued morpho­ logical examinations of floral structure and development, especially the morphological structures in Equisetum in which he was also a taxonomic authority; all led to Schaffner's great studies on the na­ ture and determination of sex in plants. Coulter supplied contribu­ tions in sexual differentiations in plant structures and development. His tremendously important little volume, The Evolution of Sex in Plants., practically epitomized the knowledge of the time. Tracing sexual development through vegetative, asexual and sexual stages of development, it not only dealt with the evolution of sex organs but also discussed the difficult problems of alternation of generations, the germination of the unfertilized egg, and concluded with a theory of sex: . . . the impression one obtains of sexuality as a method of reproduction is that it represents protoplasts engaged in reproduction under peculiar difficulties that do not obtain in reproduction by spores or by vegetative multiplication,

The All-inclusive Science

255

and that its significance lies in the fact that it makes organic evolution more rapid and far more varied.22

Schaffner carried the work still further, into the realm of sexual determination in plants. In 1910 he wrote on the nature and develop­ ment of sex in plants,23 a study substantially in harmony with Coul­ ter's views. And in the phase of sex determination, Coulter learned from among others, Schaffner. Was sex predetermined by the chro­ mosome equipment that enters into the zygote? Or was it determined by physiological conditions, at the time of fertilization, or before or after? At the time of the Lilium -philadelphkum study in 1897, Coul­ ter, aware of results obtained in Strasburger's laboratory, had al­ lowed Schaffner to present his own observations and conclusions "in reference to certain cytological phenomena connected with the 're­ duction division' in the embryo sac." Then Coulter followed Schaffner's work on the nature of the reduction division and its phenomena, and in 1918, attempting a brief compilation, he pointed out that the chromosome division constitutes the basis of Mendel's segregated proportions in inheritance and that chromosomes inferentially are the probable bearers of hereditary characters. He inferred that chro­ mosomes are consequences and not causes in the work of determining hereditary characters. Within the "apartment house," was the re­ markable cosmos of determiner-enzymes, the active elements in the physico-chemical processes of determination. That both chromosomic and physiological explanations of sex determination were interdependently true seemed most plausible to Coulter and he said so in his volume, Plant Genetics:24 That chromosomes are the visible bearers of hereditary characters is prob­ ably true, at least in most cases upon which there are data. Chromosomes, however, are not the ultimate things; behind lies the physico-chemical back­ ground, and it is this which is the ultimate aim of biology to understand.

Coulter extended his observations still further, speculating that herein possibly lay the explanation for MacDougal's experiments 22 P23

137.

"The Nature and Development of Sex in Plants," Proc. Ohio Acad. Sci., V (1910), 327-350, delivered while president of the Ohio Academy and following the significant study of "The Nature of the Reduction Division and Related Phenomena," Ohio Natural­ ist·, V (1905), 331-340. See Waller's fuller explanation of this point in his study of Schaffner, of. cit. 24 With Merle C. Coulter (Chicago: Univ. of Chi. Press, 1918), p. 203. ix and 214 pp. Revised in 1923 by M. C. Coulter as Outline of Genetics.

256

John Merle Coulter

seeking to alter the course of inheritance by chemical injection of the ovaries of Raimannia, producing seeds bearing qualities not exhibited by the parent, "wholly irreversible, and fully transmissible in suc­ cessive generations."25 In work of a similar character, using radium, Dr. C. Stuart Gager separately experimented, announcing in 1911 results of his work as seeming to emphasize the fact, already recog­ nized, that inheritance of a character and its expression are different phenomena. Gager used Onagra biennis or Oenothera. For MacDougal this plant had given seeds, one of which produced a plant tested to the third generation. Species of other genera had been used and more than 100,000 seeds harvested from treated ovaries, many being sown in 1907. MacDougal's experiments, during Coulter's life, however, did not yield the results expected or hoped for. In 1911 MacDougal wrote of an early derivative "carried to the fifth genera­ tion without showing indications of returning to the parental type."26 At Cornell, under Webber's supervision, injections of solutions used by MacDougal were made in capsules of a wild plant, Silene noctiflora, and although about 15,000 plants were used, "no mutations were found in the treated plants which were not also found in the un­ treated or check plants." Coulter, years later, regarded MacDougal's experiments as showing "unusual [hereditary] responses that have appeared as the result of unusual physiological conditions" and, more­ over, advanced a theory which might "help to reconcile some of the apparently contradictory data of the physiological school and the cytological school." Coulter's volume, Plant Genetics, a course of lectures on the subject, was intended "not to develop professional geneticists, but merely to initiate students of botany into the point of view of working geneticists, so that they could appreciate an impor­ tant phase of botanical literature." In 1918 Coulter had a group of young botanists, among whom was his son Merle, and for them, with aid of his coauthor, he prepared the lectures. The part Coulter played in the development of the subject of plant genetics is illustrated by the work of George Harrison Shull, 25 Heredity and Environic Forces," Address of the vice-president and chairman of the section of botany, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago meet­ ing, 1907-1908, Science, n.s., XXVII (January 24, 1908), 121 &. Also, MacDougal's "First Crosses Breeding True," Plant WorldII (1908), 42. 26 "Alterations in Heredity Induced by Ovarial Treatment," o f . c i t .

The All-inclusive Science

257

who received his doctor's degree from the University of Chicago in 1904. On March 13, 1902, Coulter wrote Rose: I have just received your letter of March IX in reference to George H. Shull. He is one of the best men we have had, but he is not quite "ripe." If you should take him now you would secure a capable assistant whose back­ ground is not quite modern. A year from now you could not find a better man by scouring the whole country over. He is full of work, scientific and accurate to the tips of his fingers, and a good writer. He is about to be ap­ pointed a Fellow here for next year and wants very much to spend another year with us... .

Shull went with Rose nevertheless and Coulter was sure that he would fit into Rose's "needs to a dot." On April 10, Coulter wrote Shull: The Spring Quarter has opened in a stunning way. The department of bot­ any has broken all its records for attendance on courses. Every course is full, all the elementary ones with waiting lists, and we have only gradually been able to get rid of people we could not carry. Every microscope that we own, or that we could borrow from the other departments, is now in use, and we could use more if we had them. The club is compelled to adjourn to the large lecture room, since it cannot get into the old club room any longer with any comfort.

Shull was pleased with his contact with Rose but he returned to Chicago, completed his work, and becoming resident botanist at the Station for Experimental Evolution, among other matters, initiated studies in the effects of cross- and self-fertilization on the occurrence of mutations and fluctuations in Oenothera, Indian corn, Shepherd's purse, and many other plants.27 It was Shull's schooling in morphology and physiology at Chicago that laid a sound foundation for his future brilliant rise as a plant geneticist. True, prior to study with Coulter, Shull had become "a 'self-made' botanist, having had [his] interest awakened at the age of 10, when [his] eldest brother, then 18, began on his own initiative a study of various college subjects. . . ." He and his brother, Charles Albert Shull, now professor of plant physiology at the University of Chicago, studied on their southern Ohio farm in spare hours, during their evenings, and on Sundays; and the establishment of a circulating library in the neighborhood made books available for them. George 27 See also "Studies in Organic Evolution," by D. T. MacDougal, Jour. N.Y. Bot. Gari. VI (January 1905), 27, where Shull's participation in work at the Garden conducted by MacDougal was described.

258

John Merle Coulter

Shull, when twenty years of age, subscribed for the Botanical Gazette and before entering Antioch College "had pretty well mastered the taxonomy of the local flora so far as the vascular plants were con­ cerned." The contributions made to American botany by these broth­ ers—George in genetics and Charles in physiology—is of great value. For many years in matters of plant genetics, Coulter referred to George Shull. In 1905 they exchanged correspondence concerning the work of Luther Burbank, whom Coulter regarded as "a wonder­ ful fellow in manipulating plants and getting interesting results." In 1907 Coulter consulted Shull on points connected with De Vries's Plant Breeding "to which the attention of plant breeders should be called." That year when a publishing house sought after a "popular account of such work as that of De Vries, Burbank, [Shull] at Cold Spring Harbor and other pieces of work" explanatory of "plantbreeding and evolution," which would give genuine information to the intelligent reading public, Coulter turned to Shull. In 1911 when preparing his address, "The problems of plant breeding," Coulter, explaining that his address was to be "an editor's rather than an in­ vestigator's summing up of the situation," asked Shull to furnish him with three or four significant developments in plant breeding during the last years. Shull hailed W. Johannsen's Elemente der exacten Erblichkeitslehre as a book "worthy of a place beside Dar­ win's Origin of Sfecies and De Vries's NLutationstheorie, . . . a classic example of the new spirit which has entered into biological investiga­ tion in the beginning of the twentieth century" since it ably combined biometric and genetic methods in the study of heredity and har­ monized mathematical and biological analysis, presenting "a thor­ oughly well-balanced treatment of heredity and variation in the light of all" recent refinements of method. The Gazette published Shull's review in 1910 and next year Coulter referred to Johannsen's geno­ types as a "significant and clarified conception," adding, "In brief, it is directly opposed to the idea of gradual change through selection, each genotype being permanent and unchangeable." Moreover, in Plant Genetics, when generally discussing "artificial selection . . . the oldest of all methods of plant breeding" and pedigree cultures in relation to the "factor hypothesis," Coulter described Johannsen's work along with De Vries's as having "discovered what they called elementary species or pure lines and demonstrated that artificial

The All-inclusive Science

259

selection could never result in any large or permanent improve­ ment." A discussion of this and Weismann's theory of the continuity of the germ plasm, today an accepted fact, is not the province of this book. The point stressed is that Coulter very much respected Shull's opinions in matters of genetics. Furthermore, when in 1911-1912 Johannsen visited America and plans were more or less arranged for him by Shull, Coulter enter­ tained him at a "biological lunch," securing from him the promise of an address at the University of Chicago after his lectures at Urbana and the University of Illinois. In 1912 when Coulter planned a seminar in evolution and he­ redity, he consulted Shull. Obviously the work of the experiment stations was very valuable and progressive. Universities, in matters of genetics and pathology, shared in work but were by no means su­ perior. Shull and other investigators of the stations reviewed the ever-increasing literature coming from America and abroad—not only for the Gazette but other journals. Notwithstanding all this, when Princeton University in 1914 offered Shull a place at its in­ stitution, Coulter urged acceptance, saying: I have been in correspondence with Professor Conklin of Princeton, who is very anxious to secure a botanical colleague who will be a geneticist. Of course I told him that you were the man. . . . In my judgment it would be good for you and good for the science. I cannot help thinking that you would have a freer hand and more inspiration in developing your subject in the graduate school of Princeton. . . . This is nothing against Cold Spring Harbor, but such a place must necessarily get to be more and more like a government position. . . .

Coulter believed Shull's "research need not stop" in such a great university, even though its "botanical reputation remain[ed] to be made." A new experimental greenhouse was built. Shull taught ge­ netics and in 1916 when he founded a new journal, Genetics, pub­ lished at Princeton, Coulter wrote him: The first humber of "Genetics" has come to hand, and it certainly makes a good showing. In editing the journal you will grow into some knowledge of the experience I have been through for a good many years, with the exception that Genetics starts out as a real journal; while the Gazette had a good many tentative years.

That year the University of Chicago, celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary selected Shull one of four honored to give papers on a botanical program. Β. E. Livingston was selected for physiology.

26ο

John Merle Coulter

Frank Lincoln Stevens for pathology. The university's doctors of botany had reached 76 in number by November 1915. Coulter planned departmental expansion. However, in 1917, a year of the first World War, his chairmanship of the committee on botany of the National Research Council got under way and the next year in November, the biological division of the council of which he was a part had to adjust to peace conditions. Nevertheless, Coulter's university plans included "experimental work in plant breeding." He wrote Shull for material, and late in 1917 said: . . . we are expecting that [our new course in genetics] is a start toward developing a line of work in genetics, just as we have segregated ecology and physiology, and hope to provide for pathology. . . .

Coulter's son, Merle, later took over the work in genetics. Collaborations between Coulter and Shull, moreover, deserve large credit. Shull became an authority in biometry. Much of his work in genetics was a product of individual creative genius. From 1904 to 1916, working with corn, he had enumerated twelve propositions re­ lating to hybrid vigor and to these Coulter referred in his book, Plant Genetics. Coulter drew on works of Ε. M. East, Albert F. Blakeslee, R. A. Emerson, Shull, and other Americans, for his material, together with products of work of the great Europeans. These were the great sources of plant genetics in America, men who, like T. H. Morgan, Raymond Pearl, W. E. Castle, Charles B. Davenport, and others, sought to bring the work of the breeder and the trained morphologist and cytologist closer in harmony by arriving at the most fundamental knowledge of the workings of heredity. Of course, the experimental laboratories contributed their share toward advancing this branch of science. However, this branch reached its culmination after the development of Coulter's greatest capabilities had passed. For years it had been developing in horticulture and economic botany. Its his­ tory really had been somewhat similar to that of plant pathology. At first, the domain of its work largely lay in experimental stations and laboratories. It was not a work developed with energy by a large number of schools. The government laboratories, the research institu­ tions, and the agricultural colleges claimed these very important provinces in botanical science. Coulter joined in making known the results of their labors as his own field shared. In 1911 he participated in a course of lectures given at the Uni-

The All-inclusive Science

261

versity of Chicago on "Heredity and Eugenics," aiming to sum­ marize the recent advances in knowledge concerning heredity and evolution and its relation to plant, animal, and human improvement and welfare. A general introduction, "Recent Developments in He­ redity and Evolution," and "The Physical Basis of Heredity and Evolution from the Cytological Standpoint," were his subjects. This was Coulter's sphere as interpreter and investigator—he could inter­ pret developments and he understood investigation in the funda­ mental sciences. Others who participated were William Ernest Castle, Charles Benedict Davenport, Edward Murray East, and William Lawrence Tower.28 And these were men most influential in develop­ ing genetics in America, together with its accompanying branch ap­ plying to human beings, eugenics, or the science aiming on the basis of the new knowledge to give children the right to be well born.29 Coulter fell in with eugenics as a hearty advocate. De Vries had said that the acquisition of special characters over long periods of time was the real question with which evolution was concerned. The survival of acquired characters from one generation to another was a question which concerned botanists. There was enough difficulty establishing that natural selection could not evolve new species, or new characters important enough to constitute bases for phylogeny in the great plant groups. At best, natural selection could do no more than add to the huge host of fluctuating variations manifest in the plant kingdom. "Progressive evolution," within the meaning of Naegeli, or orthogenesis, concerned itself with trans­ formation of species from internal causes. Such changes were shown to exist in definite directions, through all conditions and in opposition to all forms of competition, increasing therewith from generation to generation. Such, Coulter likened to "the great oceanic currents that represent a deep mass movement quite indifferent to surface condi­ tions 5 while natural selection and mutation may be likened to the wind that breaks up the surface of the water into waves,"30 a figure he had used before in differentiating species and the changes which 28 Published and republished in 1912 and 1913 as Heredity and Eugenics (Univ. of Chi. Press), vi and 313 pp., 98 cuts in text. 29 John M. Coulter, Evolution, Heredity and Eugenics, School Science Series (Bloom­ ing-ton, 111.: John G. Coulter, Publ., 1916), see Chapter 25. 30 Evolution, Heredity and Eugenics, pp. 64-65. See also "Theory of Natural Selection from the Standpoint of Botany," Fifty Years of Darwinism (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1909), p. 71.

202

John Merle Coulter

phylogeny makes evident. One could believe in natural selection, mutation, and orthogenesis, for none invaded the province of the other, that is, they were "not mutually destructive." But determining whether special characters were inheritable, surviving from one gen­ eration to another, was difficult to say the least. The prevailing view, during Coulter's time, was that they were not. Until Weismann authors, following Lamarck, generally assumed the inheritance of ac­ quired characters. Coulter divided them into four categories: (i) Mutilations; (2) Effects of Environment; (3) Effect of Use and Disuse; and (4) Disease Transmission; admitting, of course, there were other illustrations. Concluding his chapter on the subject, Coul­ ter quoted East who had said: My confession of faith is, the environment has been an immense factor in organic evolution, but its effects are shown either so infrequently or after the elapse of so great a time, that for practical purposes of plant breeding we can neglect it as we would neglect an infinitesimal in a calculation.31

However, Coulter admitted of possible exceptions in plant life: The bulk of available evidence, however, seems to be against the inheritance of acquired characters; but there are a number of biological facts that seem difficult to explain in any other way. In animals the mechanism may seem to make the inheritance of acquired characters impossible; but the situation in plants is distinctly different.

In other words, investigation was still to render the final answer with reference to this problem. In America plant genetics—that part dealing with plant breeding in its early stages—had developed somewhat alongside, and con­ temporaneous with, plant pathology. Neither matured as well defined branches until introduction of experimental methods by rapid de­ velopment of physiology at the turn of the century. De Vries's rev­ elations integrated work in genetics. The segregation of pathology32 from the older morphology, physiology, and mycology made it a scientific entity. As late as 1890 the United States lagged in the pub­ lication of authoritative treatises on plant diseases. F. Lamson Scrib81 "Inheritance of Acquired Characters," Plant Genetics (Chicago: University of Chi­ cago Press, 1918), pp. 16-27. See also Evolution, Heredity and. Eugenics, p. 28, where discussion of the effect of an acquired character which includes the reproductive cells is had, and Coulter said, "there must be some influence upon inheritance." 82 The subject of plant pathology history in North America is developed in Erwin F. Smith's "Plant Pathology: A Retrospect and Prospect," Science, n.s. XV (April 18, 1902), 601 if., and Joseph Charles Arthur's "The History and Scope of Plant Pathology," International Congress of Arts and. Sciences, ed. by Howard J. Rogers, 1906, 149 £F.

The All-inclusive Science

263

ner at that time had among several government bulletins a little book, Fungous Diseases of the Grape Vinej but obviously there were no gen­ eral American works on diseases. It is not to be wondered at, since plant ills were first studied descriptively, attention being focused on the parasitic growth in mycology and on the nonparasitic in physiol­ ogy. That concerned with wounds and galls was studied in the older plant anatomy. As in medicine, the really significant work was being done in Europe. In 1895 Professor Bolley proposed to do a text in experimental plant pathology. Publishers consulted Bessey and he told them there was not as yet sufficient need for such. Bessey said, ". . . it would require more preparation in the way of previous bo­ tanical study than can be given in most agricultural colleges. Such work," he recommended, "should be procured by (1) my 'Essentials,' (2) MacDougal's 'Plant Physiology,' (3) a pretty thorough study of the Systematic Botany of the Fungi. Now this much can not be done in agricultural colleges," but continued: A book in which the whole subject of Plant Pathology was discussed in a plain and yet scientific way, would "fill a long felt want." It should be mainly to give injormation, and only secondarily should the experimental side be brought in. . . . Have you thought of Dr. B. D. Halsted, of Rutgers College, New Bruns­ wick, New Jersey, as a good man to write such a book? He can do it, and do it well, if you can get him at it. . . .

Only when Erwin F. Smith, Lewis Ralph Jones, Albert F. Woods, B. E. Galloway, M. A. Carleton, George Francis Atkinson, Herbert Hice Whetzel, P. H. Dorsett, Newton B. Pierce, F. C. Stewart, A. D. Selby, F. D. Heald, Dudley, Kellerman, Arthur, Farlow, Thaxter, and others, initiated their studies not only of the bacteria and parasitic fungi causing diseases but also of the diseases themselves prevalent in North America did plant pathology mature.33 This took place in what Arthur termed an adult manner about the beginning of the century. The division of plant pathology in the United States Depart­ ment of Agriculture, commenced by Scribner, developed by Gallo­ way, Smith, Woods, and others, became one of the world's great, flourishing centers of knowledge in this branch of botanical science, and, together with the large number of experimental stations and 33 For excellent discourses on this subject, see Herbert Hice Whetzel's An Outline of the History of Phytofathology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1918) ; also biographi­ cal memoir of Erwin Frink Smith 1854-1927, by L. R. Jones, NatJ-, Acad. Sci. Biog., Memoir XXI, first memoir.

264

John Merle Coulter

laboratories, organized the work as a functioning unit of great pro­ portions. Arthur's classification of the Uredineae was typically illustrative of the systematic phases of the work, including as it did accounts of the full life histories of each species. As late as October 30, 1902, he told Bessey: . . . It is astonishing how imperfectly many of the species, especially the older and commoner ones, are described. As you will see, I am scarcely a quarter of the way through with this part of the work. Afterward I propose to verify and complete the diagnoses by comparison with herbarium specimens, and finally add geographical distribution, arrange synonymy, citations, and put the whole into shape. . . . In establishing my system I have taken as a fundamental proposition that every true genus and species must recognize the whole life history of the plant, whatever diagnostic characters may be used in the description. But while the Uredineae show great diversity of development, yet they are often much re­ duced and important reproductive parts are frequently lacking on account of parasitism. I have assumed that the most essential structure in the life cycle is the promycelium, and that it must be present in every genuine species. But as this is an evanescent part, it is the spore from which it arises that furnishes diag­ nostic characters chiefly. The second most important structure is the spermogonium, which however, may be absent due to parasitism. The latter is the beginning, and the former the end of the cycle of development. All the other spore forms and structures may be present or not, according to the degree of differentiation and of reduction. . . .

From this letter it is quite clear how the concept of the life cycle emerged from studies of life histories. Plants were studied for pharmaceutical uses, investigations being extended by Rusby and others into morphology and anatomy. The importance of pathological and medicinal studies of plants to horti­ culture and agriculture was obvious. H. Marshall Ward's Disease in Plants1 published in London in 1901, and previous work, placed the study of plant diseases in a new light. Arthur believed that when Ward's point of view was known by both investigators and the public, great developments would take place. Plant life phenomena in all directions were being studied in terms of physics and chemistry. Loew demonstrated that some diseases were caused by enzymes. Not tax­ onomy and ecology alone had explorers in the field—pathology had also. The United States Bureau of Plant Industry put investigators in all parts of the country studying such matters as poisonous plants

The All-inclusive Science

265

in relation to animal life or methods of exterminating or controlling diseases in a large number of vegetables and commodities. The possi­ bilities of breeding disease and drought resistant strains were amply investigated. Microtechnicians studied bacteria and institutions such as the Carnegie Institution began publishing results, as E. F. Smith's Bacteria in Relation to Plant Diseases, really a manual for plant pathologists. In 1906 the office of experiment stations of the United States Department of Agriculture began preparation of a complete list of books written by agricultural-college and experiment-station men in the United States, for use by students and investigators. Text­ books followed, coordinating for scholarship the work of physiology and pathology, and emphasizing practical phases. Such works as Ludwig Jost's Lectures on Plant Physiology, treating adequately fundamental features of plant activity, aided pathological research. But more specifically important were works by Benjamin M. Duggar, one of America's ablest students in physiology and a former student abroad, who published about 1910 Fungous Diseases of Plants, con­ cerning which the Gazette said: Thus far . . . there has been no attempt to organize into a comprehensive text the vast material accumulated by plant pathologists and to make it avail­ able for teachers, although a need for such work has been felt by those who have attempted to teach the subject. The appearance of Duggar's book on plant diseases is therefore both timely and desirable. The work, as the preface indicates, is designed primarily as a text book, but its possible service as a ref­ erence book has also been kept in view. Aside from the brief historical intro­ duction, it falls into three parts: (i) culture methods and technic, (2) physio­ logical relations, and (3) fungous diseases of plants. , . . On the whole, the book is an excellent presentation of the subject of plant pathology from an American standpoint. . . . In it the vast amount of material collected through the agencies of the experiment stations and the U. S. De­ partment of Agriculture has been brought together for the first time in an easily available form. The facts presented are largely derived from American work and apply to American conditions. . . .34

What was done for pathology was done for physiology in Dug­ gar's Plant Physiology with Sfecial Reference to Plant Production in 1911, making use of experiment station bulletin material. And the Gazette observed: 34

Botanical Gazette, L (July-December 1910), 65.

266

John Merle Coulter

No science is more fundamental to agriculture than plant physiology, and yet it has had little emphasis in the agricultural colleges and experiment sta­ tions of this country. It is certainly high time that this science take its signifi­ cant position in this field of production, and Duggar has given a start in the right direction. The book has the virtue of being concrete and teachable to beginners.35

During the latter part of 191 χ the Gazette reviewed two other books on plant pathology, Diseases of Economic Plants by F. L. Stevens and J. G. Hall, and George Massee's Diseases of Cultivated. Plants and Trees. These, together with the appearance of Phyto­ pathology, the official organ of the American Phytopathological Soci­ ety established in 1909, and subsequent publications such as Pammel's Manual of Poisonous Plants: Chiejly of Eastern North America, attested to the growing interest which soon placed pathology among the ranking branches of botanical science. Gradually surveys and studies of diseases and disease-producing organisms covered more and more territory. World War I had a considerable influence on the organization of the vast diversity of botanical activity into a coherent whole. It took the defined branches of study—morphology, physiology, anatomy, cytology, genetics, pathology, and the various smaller divisions and built them into a great forceful, energetic entity free of the waste of duplicating effort. Coulter has this to say regarding the cooperative effect of the war: The transformation of botany from a list of segregates to a synthesis of all the sciences was hastened by our experience during the Great War. In that emergency every phase of botany was called upon to contribute information. It was a revelation to discover that every phase proved to be useful. This co­ operation of botanists in the general cause of public service was carried over to cooperation in research. The different groups of botanists came into con­ tact, and even interlocked in their work, so that botany began to develop as an increasing synthesis, rather than an increasing disintegration.86

What had Coulter been arguing for from the beginning of his mature years as a botanist? Of what was a great department of botany at a great university to be a symbol? The work of analysis was im­ perative. No science could build without foundation. But the com­ plete structure, the house, was the synthetic achievement. Coulter 35 Ibid., 36

LIII (January-June 1912), 74. "Development of Botany in the United States," Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., LXVI

(1927), 313.

The All-inclusive Science

267

liked a science like a home—free of dissension, striving to accomplish, aiming to be of service to man. "The church," said Coulter, "is re­ ligion organized for work among men and in society: and whatever makes for health and virtue and honesty and happiness and justice and love among men is religious work."37 In his address dedicating the laboratory building and plant houses of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, April 19, 1917, after pointing out the social, educational, and scientific contributions of botanic gardens, he concluded by saying: Years ago an Austrian monk, working in his monastery garden, discovered some interesting behavior in the plants he was breeding. He recorded his facts and his conclusions in an obscure journal, and no one paid any attention to it. What could be expected from a monk pottering in his garden? Years after­ wards, the contribution was discovered, and to-day it is the basis of most of our work in the study of heredity, and this in turn has made our agriculture scientific. No one knows what may turn up in a garden like this one of yours. It is a gold mine of opportunity. See to it that it is cultivated.38

Opportunity! That was a word written large and often in Coulter's utterances during the last decade and a half of his life. With the Great War had come at last the opportunity for the realization of visions. In 1915 Coulter was elected president of the Chicago Academy of Sciences and in that capacity served seven years, being also member ex officio of the Board of Scientific Governors and board of trustees. That was a pleasant recognition in his home city. In addition, that same year the Botanical Society of America honored him again with its coveted distinction, the presidency. No one else had ever had that honor twice. In his New York address as president, given in De­ cember 1916, he chose as his subject, "Botany as a National Asset."39 Coulter, impressed with the work of the Bureau of Plant Industry, called for extension of scientific exploration which was no longer merely analytical, but growing synthetic, organizing the benefits of years of research in pathology, genetics, ecology, taxonomy, and other branches. In no less than a half dozen addresses delivered dur­ ing this period, Coulter called attention to the work of the National Research Council organized by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of President Wilson to call science to the aid of developS7 «"phe Religion of a Scientist," Biblical World, n.s., XLI (January-June 1913), 80-86. "The Social, Educational, and Scientific Value of Botanic Gardens," Science, n.s., XLV, no. χ 174, pp. 643-647. 39 Science, XLV, n.s. (March 9, 1917), 227 ff. 88

268

John Merle Coulter

ing the national resources. The botanical opportunity was to be of practical service.40 Moreover, "some scheme of cooperation among our botanical establishments: and notably between the research establishments and the so-called practical establishments" should be developed. "[Tjhere must be developed some plan of supporting research wherever there is a competent investigator." The movement to establish re­ search fellowships had already begun. The chance had come to "increase the opportunities for botanical research"—not solely in the practical applications, more efficient food production, distribu­ tion and the like, but through continued exploration "which may or may not result in practical application. It is felt, for example, that the more we know about the structure and activities of plants the better equipped we shall be to handle plants intelligently.41 Coulter prepared for the Council of which he was a member a pamphlet, "Botanical Research as a Career," elaborating the eight large fields of botany where "opportunities for important research are almost without lim­ it." During April 1917, the Council canvassed the problems needing immediate attention with a view to assigning them to various research centers. All of the scientific equipment of America was to be utilized in solving the problems the nation faced. At first, a federation of in­ stitutions was planned. As the war years progressed, there was the group of immediate problems precipitated by it—food, timber, and raw products—and then the problems of reconstruction after the war. Coulter explained "The Botanical Work of the National Re­ search Council"42 up to 1919 when the "great cooperative problem involving twenty laboratories" was met in the work of reconstruc­ tion. Never in the history of North American Botany had such op­ portunity been presented. The National Academy in many respects was an outgrowth of the Civil War. What would the National Re­ search Council produce? That remained to be seen. In any event, the public would come to have some understanding of the part biology plays in the general welfare,43 would learn some­ thing of what botany had done during the past three decades toward human betterment. Biology taught preservation of the race, of effi40ti The

Botanical Opportunity," Sch. Sci. and Math., XVI (1916), 123-125. "Botany as a National Asset," o f . c i t . 42 Sch. Sci. and· Math., XIX (1919), 234. 43u Biology as a Practical Science," Sch. Sci. and Math., XVII (1917), 502.

41

The All-inclusive Science

269

ciency, and of life/4 Eugenics could teach the responsibility of parent­ hood and of marriage. Science now had a widely enlarged mission in education and religion. Jesus never "lost his confidence in the possibil­ ities of men."45 Coulter distinguished between the illustrative and de­ monstrative phases in scientific teaching brought home in the church and school as well as the classroom and laboratory. He had a definite program of homiletics for ministers in the uses of scientific findings. A number of articles were published by him in the Homiletic Review.ie Nature herself exampled religious truths. An excellent illus­ tration may be found in his article "Regeneration in Plants,"47 where, using Zamia, Coulter pointed out: . . . the power of regeneration is as extensive as are living cells, and its re­ sults are as various as are the structures of the body. Not only can it restore lost parts of a mutilated structure, make a new structure to replace one that is lost, and call into activity dormant structures that have been held in check by the vigor of other parts, but it can also take two individuals and make a composite organism in which neither individuality is lost, but both live together as one body.

But to Coulter man's sphere was one; that of the plant world an­ other, although in the study of one processes in the study of the other might be learned. He said: The set of religious principles contained in the ten commandments, or in the Sermon on the Mount, are not authoritative because they are commanded, but because they are true.

Coulter knew the difference between the parable and the fact. One was a teaching symbol and the other demanded rigid experi­ mental finding on proof: We have discovered in these latter days that the body and the spirit are not mutually destructive antagonists, pitted against each other in mortal combat. Once spiritual development was measured by physical repression; but we have learned of our essential unity; and that body and spirit are fitted to be mutually stimulating. This means that biology and religion may have a common mis­ sion in the regeneration of man and of society; that they can be mutually help44 !56) t-6$-I66, 175, 181, 187, 192, 198, 262, 263-264, 272, 308 Arthur Herbarium, 308 Association of American Geographers, 251 Association Internationale des Botanistes, 192 Atkinson, George Francis, i n , 263, 278 Atwater, W . O., 205 Austin, Coe F., 33

160, 167,

Babcock, E . B., 304 Bacon, Raymond F., 287-288, 291 Bacteria in Relation to Plant Diseases, 265 Bahama Islands, 207 Bailey, Liberty Hyde, 53, 83-85, 94, 98, i n - 1 1 2 , 123, 142-147, 175, 184-185, 201, 205, 234-235, 308-309 Baird, John F., 35 Baker, A l , 91 Ball, Elmer D a r w i n , 291 Baltimore, Maryland, 1 9 1 , 234, 276 Barnard Botanical Club, 198 Barnes, Charles, 35 Barnes, Charles Reid, 35-37, 60-61, 64, 70, 73) 79-8o, 83, 85, 87, 93, 95, n o , 1 1 5 , 125) !29> 135-137) 149) iJ3> iJ5> i 6 5 " 166, 170, 174, 176, 1 7 9 - 1 8 1 , 187, 192, 200, 206, 221, 224, 232-233, 241-242, 249) 251, 253, 285, 289, 308 Barnhart, John Hendley, 303, 309 Bartlett, H. H., 203 Bateson, William, 143, 295 Bauer, George, 161 Bay View, Michigan, 149, 167 Beach, S. A . , 205

Index Beadle, C. D . , 2 1 1 Beal, William James, 33, 4.8, 53-54, 64., 70, 84, 99, 114, 160, 219, 278 Bear River, 15 Beardslee, H . C., 32 Bebb, Michael Schuck, 78, 85 Bedford, Indiana, 27 Bentham, George, 71, 246 Berlin, Germany, 152, 1 6 1 , 193, 232 Berry, Edward W . , 238, 284 Bessey, Charles Edwin, 33, 48, 51-52, 5462, 64-67, 69, 71, 73, 77-78, 80, 83, 87, 93-95> 97-98, 1 1 2 - 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 122, 124, 127, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 135-137; 139, 141, 147, i 5 I " I S 3 ) i 5 9 " l 6 o > 163-164., 166, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 173, 184, 193, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 , 220, 222-224, 228-229, 233, 245249, 263-264, 272, 278, 304, 308 Bessey, Ernst A . , 53, 1 5 1 , 204, 247, 3083°9 Beveridge, Philo J., 19 Biblical World, 237, 267, 269-270 Bibliographical Index of North American Fungi, 247 B i g Horn Mountains, W y o m i n g , 128 Biltmore Botanical Studies, 2 1 1 Biographical Memoir of John Merle Coulter, 10 Biscayne Bay, Florida, 1 2 1 , 203 Bitter Root Mountains, 228 Black Hills, 31-32, 244 Blackman, Vernon H., 291 Blakeslee, Albert F., 260, 309 Blatchley, Willis S., 73 Blodgett, John, 203 Bloomington, Indiana, 102, 125-126, 149, 308 Bolanos, Mexico, 167 Bolley, Henry Luke, 166, 263 Bonn, Germany, 156, 160-161, 193 Bornet, E., 45 Boston, Massachusetts, 126, 138, 163 Boston Society of Natural History, 231 Botanical Bulletin, 22, 31-33, 129, 161 Botanical Gazette, 1 1 , 33-37, 43-51, 60, 64-66, 68, 70-71, 77-80, 85-90, 93, 9598, 106, i i o - I I I , 1 1 6 - 1 1 8 , 122, 125, 1 2 7 - 1 3 1 , 134, 136-137, 148-154, 156157, 160-164, 166-167, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 175, 1 7 7 , *79, 181, 185, 187-189, 1 9 1 - 1 9 3 , 197-199, 203, 206, 210, 2 1 3 - 2 1 5 , 218, 226, 228, 234-238, 240-243, 245, 249, 25r-253> 258-259, 265-266, 273-274, 278, 284, 287, 294, 300, 304, 307 Botanical Society of America, 45, 122-123, 130, 1 5 1 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 , 163, 170, 189, 191192, 213, 220-224, 246, 267, 272, 306 Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 300

311

Botanical Studies, 221 Botanical Text-Book, 43-44, 47, 60 Botanisches Centralblatt, 122, 220 Botany for High Schools and Colleges, 51, 60-61, 66, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 1 3 1 , 160 Bowdoin College, 46 Bower, F . O., 181, 193 Boyce Thompson Institute, 286, 288-292, 300, 306, 308 Brackett, G. B., 204 Bradley, Frank H., 9-13, 15, 17-18, 30, 43-44 Brandegee, T . S., 21, 77, 172 Branner, John C., 73 Bray, William L., 109, 127, 130, 132, 148, 177, 219, 308 Breeder's Gazette, 302 Brefeld, O., 132 British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1 1 4 , 123, 241 Britton, Nathaniel Lord, 90-91, 94, 99, 127, 132, 134-138, 148, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 198, 207, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , 2 1 5 - 2 1 7 , 228-230, 232, 248, 272, 287 Broadhead, G . C., 32 Brookings, South Dakota, 309 Brooklyn, New Y o r k , 148, 204 Brooklyn Academy of Sciences, 229 Brooklyn Botanical Garden, 204, 267 Brooklyn Institute, 229 Brown, Addison, 170 B r o w n University, 89 Brussels, Belgium, 248 Bryologist, The, 221 Buffalo, N e w Y o r k , 154-156, 167, 181 Buitenzorg, Java, 168-169 Buller, A . H. R., 307 Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 33, 132-134, 143, 190, 213 Bulletin of the University of Kansas, 299 Bumpus, H. C., 166 Burbank, Luther, 200, 258, 281 Burrill, Thomas Jonathan, 48, 62-64, 68, 153, 278, 289 Burroughs, John, 225 Bussey Institution, 58, 205 Butler, Amos W . , 7, 73 Butler College, 154 Cajon Pass, 225 Caldwell, Otis W . , 159, 162, 1 7 7 , 179180, 187-188, 205, 296, 308-309 Cambridge, Massachusetts, 56, 78, 83, 87, 9°, 93, 97, 108, 241 Cambridge University, 1 6 1 , 212, 297 Campbell, Douglas Houghton, 67, 69, 104, 107-108, 130, 149-150, 167-169, 176, 230, 284

312

Index

Campbell, J. L., 78 Canaan Academy, 53 Canby, William M . , 47, 89 Canfield, Chancellor, 151 Cannon, William Austin, 143, 228 Canton, China, 4 Carleton, M a r k A . , 204, 229, 263, 282 Carman, E . S., 205 Carmel, California, 229, 309 Carnegie, A n d r e w , 224. Carnegie Institution, 193, 224, 228, 231, 247, 252, 265, 273, 287, 303 Carroll County, Indiana, 34 Carson, 189 Castle, William Ernest, 260-261 Castleton Botanical Garden, 230 Catalogue of Hanover College, 12 Catalogue of the Flora of Montana and Yellowstone National Park, 217 Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and. Ferns of Connecticut, 253 Catalogue of the Phaenogamous and Vascular Cryftogamous Plants of Indiana, 3J-36 Celakowsky, L . J., 65 Chamberlain, Charles Joseph, 108, 1 3 1 132, 158-159, 161-162, 179-180, 187190, 232, 239-240, 275, 284, 305, 308 Chandler, William H., 309 Chapman, A l v i n Wentworth, 25, 77, 85, 89, 170 Charleston, Illinois, 187 Charlestown, Indiana, 30 Charlotte, Vermont, 106 Chautauqua, New Y o r k , 241 Chicago, Illinois, 103, 125-126, 131, 135, 149) 154) 178, 193) 206, 224, 232, 237238, 243, 246, 272, 301, 306, 308-309 Chicago Academy of Sciences, 243, 267 Chicago College of L a w , 126 Chrysler, M . A . , 190-191, 284 Cienfuegos Botanical Garden, 229 Cinchona Botanical Garden, 230 Clapp, A . , 34-35 Clark County, Indiana, 34-35 Clarke, Henry M . , 132, 150, 158 Clear Creek, Colorado, 21 Clearwater River, 228 Clements, Frederic Edward, 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 , 141, J 73> 178, 219-220, 223, 252, 272, 280, 2 8 3> 3°3> 309 Cleveland, Ohio, 45, 247 Clute, W . N., 211 Coeur D ' A l e n e Mountains, 217 Cold Spring- Harbor, Long- Island, 193, 258-259 College Quarterly of Ames, The, 59, 61 Colorado Mountains, 219, 246-247

Colorado Plant Life, 305 Colorado River, 230 Colorado Springs, Colorado, 151 Columbia River, 15 Columbia University, 127, 197-198, 212, 291, 296 Columbus, Ohio, 30, 143, 179, 308 Comstock, J. H., 205 Conklin, E. G., 259 Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 309 Connecticut Botanical Society, 253 Contributions from the Hull Botanical Laboratory, 161-162 Contributions from the United States National Herbarium, 97, 98, 128, 153-154, 175, 219, 225-226, 231, 241, 248, 300 Cook, O. F., 229, 282 Cooks, the ( A . J. and G. H . ) , 205 Coolidge, Calvin, 291 Cooper, William S., 252 Copenhagen, Denmark, 161 Copeland, Herbert E., 32 Corbett, L . C., 204 Cornell University, 62, 94, 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , 1 1 7 , 123, 160, 184, 222, 256, 282, 309 Correns, C., 143 Coulter, Caroline ( C r o w e ) , 4-6, 12, 27, 241 Coulter, Georgiana, 79 Coulter, Georgiana ( G a y l o r d ) , 10, 27, 83, 92, 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 , 241, 297, 300, 307 Coulter, Grace, 49, 297, 307, 309 Coulter, John Gaylord, 4, 10, 49, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 149, 162, 180, 244, 261, 307, 309 Coulter, Lucy ( P o s t ) , 35 Coulter, Margaret, 49, 307 Coulter, Merle C., 1 3 1 , 255-256, 260, 301, 3°5) 3°7) 3°9 Coulter, M . Stanley, 4, 6, 8, 1 1 - 1 2 , 27, 3235) 37) 45) 49) 73> 79) 8 i ) 95) ' " 1 156, 227, 309 Coulter, Moses Stanley, 3-4 Coulter, Stanley, 4, 49 Coulter's Herbarium, 32, 37, 43, 67, 106, 127, 130, 160 Coville, Frederick V., 98, 138, 154, 1 7 1 , 176, 204, 212, 220, 225, 228, 309 Cox, E. T . , 82 Cowles, Henry Chandler, 159, 162, 173, 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , 183, 197, 203, 218, 220, 232, 238, 243, 248, 251-254, 280, 294, 300, 304) 307 Crane, Ben, 91 Crawfordsville,

Indiana,

6, 38, 49,

67,

79) 83) 89, 91-92, 104, 108, 149, 308 Crocker, William, 242, 288-289, 291, 306308

Index Crowe, Crowe, Crowe, Crowe, Crowe, Curtiss, Custer,

Caroline, 4, 27 Esther ( A l e x a n d e r ) , 2 James, 6 John Finley, 2-5, 7, 9, 11, 147 Sadie, 5 A . H., 59, 12 x General G. A . , 31-32

313

Eastwood, Alice, 248 Eaton, Daniel Cady, 15, 30, 33, 50, 53, 78 Echo Canyon, Utah, 13 Ecological Society of America, 285 Educational Bi-monthly, 244 Educational Review, 155 Eichler, A . , 214 Elementary Botanical Exercises, 115 Dahlgren, B. E., 309 Elementary Studies in Botany, 305 Dana, James D w i g h t , 56 Eliot, President, 53, 130 Darwin, Charles, 39, 41-42, 44, 47, 64, E l Paso, Texas, 228 66, 73, 84, 141_142, 1691 44, 194-197) Emerson, Rollins Adams, 145, 260, 309 199-200, 234-235, 258, 294, 296-297 Engelmann, George, 32-34, 77-78, 85, 96, Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertain127-128, 154, 232, 304 ing to Darwinism, 44 Engler, A . , 136, 152, 158, 160-161, 1 7 1 , Davenport, Charles Benedict, 260-261 214-215, 279 Davis, Bradley M . , 149-150, 158-159, 170, Erythea, 129 174, 178, 188, 308 Essentials of Botany, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 120, 263 Davis, Ralph Marshall, 307 Eustis, Florida, 120, 122 Dawson, A . C., 152 Evans, Walter H., 82, 96 Dawson, Sir William, 68-69 Evansville, Indiana, 103 Deane, Walter, 139 Everglades, Florida, 121, 203, 219 De Bary, Anton, 45, 67, 93, 107, 190 Evermann, Barton W . , 73 DeCandolle, Casimir, 161, 306 Evolution, Heredity and Eugenics, 261, Delphi, Indiana, 27 262, 294 Denver, Colorado, 21, 24, 192, 215 Evolution of Sex in Plants, 250, 254, 275 D e P a u w University, 116, 212 Expeditions, 25, 27, 31-32, 37, 172, 183, Desert Botanical Laboratory, 228-230 225-228, 288. See also Surveys. D e T o n i , J. B., 160-161 Exferiment Station Record, 204 Detroit, Michigan, 160 De Vries, Hugo, 42, 142-144, 146, 182, Fabyan's, 105 193-204, 226, 231, 258, 261-262, 272, Fairchild, David, 169, 204, 229, 282, 309 280, 296 Farlow, William Gilson, 43-46, 48, 58-59, Dewey, L . H., 98 62-64, 72-74, 77, 79, 89, 95, 99, 101, Disease in Plants, 264 150, 168-170, 172-174, 218, 241, 246Diseases of Cultivated Plants and Trees, 247, 263, 278, 308 2 66 Farlow Herbarium, 308 Diseases of Economic Plants, 266 Fawcett, William, 230 Dominion Experimental Farm of Canada, Fernald, Merritt Lyndon, 2 1 0 - 2 1 1 , 214, 282 248 Donaldson, Professor, 32 Fernow, Bernhard E., 225, 283 Dorsett, P. H., 204, 263 Ferry Hall Seminary, 126 Drennan, Manuel J., 25, 28 Field Museum, 153, 206-207, 210, 232, Dresden, Germany, 193 3°9 Drude, Oscar, 118, 139, 160, 178, 193, Fire-Hole Basin, W y o m i n g , 17-18 220, 252, 279 Fisher, Elmon M . , 108-109, 126-128, 132 Dublin, Ireland, 193 Flagstaff, Arizona, 228 Dubuque, Iowa, 56 Flahault, 65 Dudley, W . R., 263 Flathead Lake, 228 D u g g a r , Benjamin M . , i n , 179, 204, Flathead, Montana, 219 265-266, 309 Flora of Michigan, 219 Dunn, Jacob Piatt, 155 Flora of Montana, 215 Durand's Index, 67 Flora of North America, 30 Flora of Northwest America, 219 Eagle River, 24 Flora of Pennsylvania, 219 Earle, F. S., 230 Flora of Western Middle California, 248 East, Edward Murray, 145, 260-262 Florists Exchange, 301 East Lansing, Michigan, 308 Floyd County, Indiaila, 34

314

Index

F o r t B r i d g e r , W y o m i n g , 32 F o r t Ellis, 15 F o r t H a l l , Idaho, 15, 17, 19 F o r t W a y n e , Indiana, 103 Fossil Plants, 233, 273 F r a n k l i n , B e n j a m i n , 203 Front R a n g e , C o l o r a d o , 22 Fruit Belt, 300 F u l l e r , G e o r g e D a m o n , 183, 307-308 Fundamentals of Plant Breeding, 249, 302 Fungous Diseases of Plants, 265 Funston, Frederick, 225 G a g e r , C. Stuart, 1 7 9 , 198, 256, 286 G a l a p a g o s Islands, 1 6 1 G a l l o w a y , B. T . , 122, 204, 263 G a n o n g , W . F . , 2 1 8 , 220, 223, 2 5 1 , 253 Garber, A . P . , 33 Gardner, N . L . , 248 Garritt, Joshua B., 2, 5, 7 - 1 2 , 27-28 Garritt, Sadie ( C r o w e ) , 5 Gattinger, D r . A . , 87 G a y l o r d , Georgiana, 27 Geddes, W . Nevin, 25 Genetics., 259, 276 Geneva, N e w Y o r k , 123 Geneva, Switzerland, 1 6 1 , 192, 306 Genoa, Italy, 134 Geyser Basin, 15, 1 7 - 1 8 Glacier P a r k , 305 G l a s g o w , Scotland, 1 5 6 Gleason, Henry A l l e n , 252, 280 Gnivri, 22, 30, 42, 43 Goebel, Professor K . von, 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 , *93> 233 Goethe, 201 G o f f , Emmett Stull, 205 Goodale, G e o r g e Lincoln, 30, 43, 45-52, 59-62, 64, 67, 72, 77, 83, 94-95, 99, 108, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 1 4 7 , 153, 1 7 4 , 1 7 8 - 1 7 9 , 1 8 1 , 278 Goodspeed, D r . , 152 G r a n d Canyon, 19, 203 G r a n d Island, 149 G r a n t , Ulysses S., 27 Graves, Henry S., 283 G r a y , A s a , 10, 15, 23, 25-26, 2 9 - 3 1 , 33, 35> 4 0 - 4 1 , 43-58, 60-62, 64, 66-72, 7 7 8 1 , 83-85, 87, 89-93, 95, 97, 99, 1 0 1 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 8 , 129, 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 , 136, 142, 1 4 7 , 149, 164, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 8 - 1 7 9 , 185186, I9O, 198, 2 0 I , 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 237, 2 4 1 , 246, 253, 294, 304, 306 G r a y , Jane L o r i n g , 4 1 , 44, 89, 241 G r a y Herbarium, 83, 9 1 , 106, 109, 138, 149, 232, 287, 308 Great Basin, 15 G r e a t Salt L a k e , 1 4 - 1 5 , 203

Greene, E d w a r d Lee, 2 1 , 33, 77,

90-91,

96, 133, I 3 5 " I 3 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 248 Greenman, J. M . , 207, 2 1 4 , 232, 2 5 3 , 309 G r e g o r y , E m i l y L . , 190 Grinnell, George Bird, 225 Grinnell C o l l e g e , 53 Grisebach, A . H. R., 160 Gronert, T h e o d o r e G r e g o r y , 67 Guaymas, M e x i c o , 167 Guignard, L., 161-162 G u l f of C a l i f o r n i a , 229 Hales, Stephen, 1 5 6 H a l l , E l i h u , 33 H a l l , H . M . , 248, 304 H a l l , J. G., 266 Halsted, B y r o n D . , 83, 99, 205, 263, 278 Handbook of Plant Dissection, 60, 87, 165, 187 Handbook of Plant Morfhology, 188 Handbook of Trees of California, 248 H a n o v e r , Indiana, 1 - 6 , 1 1 , 26-30, 32, 88, 1 7 5 , 2 4 1 , 308 Hanover Academy, 2 H a n o v e r C o l l e g e , 1 - 1 2 , 24-25, 27-30, 32, 35, 37-38, 43-45, 49, 52, 66-67, 70, 7273, 76, 1 1 5 , ' 5 5 , ! 5 9 , 173> i 8 3 , 236, 292, 299, 308 Hanover College Monthly, 9, 35, 38-39, 42, 183 Hansen, Niels E . , 229, 282, 309 H a r d i n g , Samuel Bannister, 103 Harper, Robert A i m e r , 132, 284, 291 Harper, President W . R., 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , 124, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 , 159, 189, 206 H a r r i m a n , E d w a r d H., 2 2 5 - 2 2 6 H a r r i n g t o n , M a r k , 48, 1 1 4 Harshberger, John W . , 2 1 9 , 279 H a r v a r d Peak, 23 H a r v a r d University, 26, 43-47, 50, 53, 5 7 60, 66, 94, 105, 109, 1 1 7 , 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 , 160, 1 7 3 - 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 , l 8 l > l 8 5 , l9°> 229, 2 7 7 , 308-309 H a r v e y , Francis L e R o y , 5 5 Harvey, L. H., 219 H a y , O. P., 73 Hayden, Ferdinand Vandeveer, 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 7 2 1 , 26, 32 Hays, W i l l e t M . , 145 Heald, F. D . , 165, 263 Heckman, George C . , 38 Hedrick, U. P., 205 Heer, O s w a l d , 68, 81 Helena, M o n t a n a , 16 Hemsley, W . B . ( ? ) , 209 Henry's F o r k of Snake R i v e r , 1 6 - 1 7 Henry's Lake, 17 Heyde, H . T h . , 98

Index Hilgard, Eugene Woldemar, 114, 123, 227 Hill, Ellsworth J., 34, 77, 278 History of Hanover College, 5, 11 History of Indiana University, 1820-1902, 102 Hitchcock, A . S., 204 Hofmeister, W . , 67, 86, 108 , 181, 200 Hollick, Arthur, 70, 163 Holliday, W . A . , 8 Holway, E . W . D . , 94 Holzinger, John M . , 229 Homiletic Review, 269 Hooker, Sir Joseph Dalton, 71, 81, 88, 246 Hope Botanical Garden, 230 Hopkins, C. G., 145 Hopkins Seaside Laboratory, 229 Horsford, J. H., 106 Hottes, Charles F., 63, 289 Houston, Texas, 203 Hovey Museum, 67 Howe, C. D . , 219 Howell, Thomas, 219 Hull Botanical Laboratory, 158, 160, 164 Humphrey, J. E., 168-169 Hussey, Professor, 35 Ikeno, Dr., 122 Illinois Academy of Sciences, 249 Illinois Alumni News, 63 Illinois Horticultural Society Transactions, 63 . Illinois Industrial University, 63 Illinois Wesleyan, 212 Imperial College of Science and Technology, 291 Indiana Academy of Science, 34, 74, 244, 273 Indiana Dental College, 154 Indiana School of L a w , 103, 154 Indiana Student, 109 Indiana University, 1, 66, 73-74, 80, 102, 1 1 5 , 124, 149, 155, 299, 308 Indiana University, 1820-1904, Historical Sketch, 103 Indianapolis, Indiana, 29, 38,-99, 103, 107 International Congress of A rts and Sciences, 200, 262 International Congresses, 134, 143, 200, 238, 248, 272, 303 Introduction to Cytology, 284 Iowa Agricultural College, 48, 53-59, 61, 63, 66, 1 1 3 , 166, 246 Iowa State College Journal of Science, 53 Ithaca, New Y o r k , 303 Jackson County, Indiana, 34 Jacksonville, Florida, 120 James, Thomas P., 165

315

Jefferson County, Indiana, 1, 1 1 , 29, 32, 34-35 Jeffersonville, Indiana, 103 Jeffrey, Edward C., 123, 188, 190-191, 218, 239-240, 284 Jenkins, Oliver P., 73 Jepson, Willis Linn, 214-215, 248 Johannsen, W . , 258-259 Johns Hopkins University, 59-60, 168, 220, 285, 308 Johnson, Duncan S., 230 Johnson, Samuel William, 205 Jones, D . F., 309 Jones, Lewis Ralph, 263, 282, 291, 309 Jordan, David Starr, 73-74, 87, 102-104, 109, 149, 1 5 1 , 306 Jost, L u d w i g , 265 Journal of Afflied Microscofy, 176, 187 Journal of Ecology, 271 Journal of General Physiology, 280 Journal of Mycology, 221 Journal of the New York Botancial Garden, 213, 257, 300 Journal of Theology, 183 Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 303 Judson, Harry Pratt, 154, 289 Kankakee River, 36 Kansas State Agricultural College, 222 Kearney, Thomas H., 219, 225, 229 Kellerman, K a r l , 1 2 1 , 204 Kellerman, William Ashbrook, 221-222, 263 K e l l o g g , 77 Kent Chemical Laboratory, 158 K e w Gardens, 114, 212 K i n g , Augustus, 8 K i n g , Clarence, 183, 208 Kingsley, John Sterling, 73 K i r k w o o d , Daniel, 73 Knoblauch, D r . Emil, 157, 178 Knowlton, Frank Hall, 69, 163 Kraus, Ezra Jacob, 207, 283, 308 Kraybill, Henry Reist, 283 Lafayette, Indiana, 35, 94, 181, 192, 241, 308 Lafayette College, 20, 32 Lake Amatitlan, 221 Lake Atitlan, 221 Lake Forest, Illinois, 125-126, 308 Lake Forest Academy, 18, 126 Lake Forest College, 125, 126-127, 167, 308 Lake Forest University, 126, 130-132, 148i54» 158

316

Index

Lake Michigan, 36, 130, 203 Lake Superior, 149 Lake of the Woods, 155 Lake Worth, Florida, 121 Lamarck, J. B. P. A . de M . , 141, 194, 196, 227, 262 Land, William Jesse Goad, 188, 191, 232233, 238, 245, 278, 303 L a Paz, Mexico, 167 Lapham, Increase Allen, 30, 34 Laramie, W y o m i n g , 2 1 5 Lawrence County, Indiana, 34 Lazenby, W . R., 205 LeConte, John, 253 Lectures on Plant Physiology, 265 Lehrbuch der Botanik, 52, 1 3 1 , 160 Lehrbuch der okologischen Pflanzengeografhie, 157 Leiberg, J. B., 217 Leipzig, Germany, 156 Leland Stanford University, 102, 229 Lesquereux, Leo, 20, 26, 68-69, 81-82, 163, 165, 273 Letters of Asa Gray, 4 1 , 44 Library of Congress, 308 Lincoln, Nebraska, 113, 151 Lindley, Ernest Hiram, 299 Linnaeus, C., 50 Linnean Society, 197, 300 Lipman, Jacob G., 290 Little Colorado River, 228 Livingston, Burton Edward, 180, 219, 231, 248, 259, 285, 308 Lloyd, F. E., 231 Loew, O., 264 Logansport, Indiana, 12, 25, 27, 32, 35 London, England, 291 Long's Peak, 22, 23 Los Angeles, California, 228, 309 Lotsy, J. P., 237 Louisiana State University, 247 Louisville, Kentucky, 29, 33-34, 103 L u d l o w , William, 31 Lux, Ernst, 98 Lyell, Sir Charles, 66 Macbride, T . H., 1J3, 219, 221 M c C a l l u m , W i l l i a m Burnett, 248-249 McCormick, Mrs. Cyrus, 130 McCormick Theological Seminary, 237, 270 M a c D o u g a l , Daniel Trembly, 116, 155156, 166-170, 179, 197-200, 2 1 7 , 227228, 230, 233, 255-257, 263, 272, 279, 286, 309 M a c D o u g a l l , W . B., 279 Macfarlane, John M . , 218 M c G i l l University, 277 MacLean, Dr., 151

M a c M i l l a n , Conway, 118, 1 4 1 , 155, 178, 219, 221 McNab, William Ramsey, 61-62, 8 j Macoun, John, 88, 96 M c V a u g h , Rogers, 309 Madison, Indiana, 2-3, 6, 35, 135, 137 Madison Lake, 18 Madison River, 17-18 Madison University, 3 M a h a f f y , John P., 193 Manitou, Colorado, 283 Manual of the Botany of the Northern United States, 44, 66, 71, 89-92, 95, 97, 99> 1361 171> i 98> 2 1 5 , 253 Manual of the Flora of the Rocky Mountain Region, 80, 84-85, 89, 97-98, 137, 207-208, 214-218, 241 Manual of the Phanerogams and Pteridofhytes of Western Texas, 97-98, 137, 218 Manual of Poisonous Plants: Chiefly of Eastern North America, 266 Marine Biological Laboratory, 149 Marion, A . F., 68 Marquette, Michigan, 149, 178, 219 Martin, G. W . , 107, 132 Martindale, I. C., 33, 87, 89, 96 Massee, George, 266 Matsumura, J., 161 Maxon, William R., 2 1 1 , 230, 303 Mazatlan, Mexico, 167 Medical College of Indiana, 154 Meehan, Thomas, 50 Mellon Institute, 287-288 Mendel, Gregor, 142-146, 201, 235, 255, 280, 295 Mendenhall, Thomas Corwin, 73 Merrell, William D . , 162, 178-179 Merriam, C. Hart, 225 Merrill, Elmer D., 225 Methods in Plant Histology, 187, 305 Mexico City, Mexico, 231 Miami, Florida, 203, 229, 247 Michaux, Frangois Andre, 33, 88 Michigan Agricultural College, 48, 53-54, 66, 84, 247, 308 Michigan State Teachers' Association, 53 Miles, M a n l y , 205 M i l l Valley, 203 Millis, W . A., 11 Millspaugh, Charles F., 153, 169, 207, 278 Milton, Ohio, 52 Minneapolis, Minnesota, 70, 247 Minnesota Academy of Sciences, 59, 179 Minnesota River, 118 Minot, Dr., 86, 99, 107 Mission Mountains, 228 Mississippi River, 54, 78

Index Missouri Botanical Garden, 96, 160, 278, 309 Mohave Desert, California, 225 Mohr, Charles, 219 Monografh of North American Vmbelliferae, 175, 208-209, 2 1 1 Monterey, California, 203 Moore, George T . , 179, 198, 204, 218, 236, 278, 286 Morgan, T . H., 234, 260 Morfhology of Angiosferms, 189, 304 Morfhology of Gymnosferms, 188, 190, 239-240, 275, 304 Mottier, D a v i d Myers, 106-108, 132 Mount Carmel, Illinois, 34 Mount Hamilton, 203 Mount Hayden, 17, 22 Mount Katahdin, 2x9 Mount Lincoln, 22-23 M t . Orizaba, 107 M t . Washington, i o j Mountain of the Holy Cross, 23-24, 105 M u i r , John, 225 Miiller, J., 45 Munson, T . V., 205 Mutationstheorie, Die, 182, 197, 258 Mycological Bulletin, 221 Nanking, China, 298 National Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10, 243, 250, 263, 268 National Educational Association, 114, 1 5 1 , 167, 170, 173 National Research Council, 260, 267-268, 288 Nature and Art, 236 Nature Study Review, 236 Natilrlichen Pflanzenfamilien, Die, 136, 160 Nealley, C. G., 97 Nebraska Academy of Science, 247 Nelson, A v e n , 43, 148, 208, 2 1 4 - 2 1 7 , 241, 300, 309

138, 197-198, 203-204, 207, 2 I 2 j 2 1 7 , 225, 228, 231, 257, 277-278, 287-288, 300, 303 Nez Perce Reservation, 228 Nichols, George E l w o o d , 253, 280 Ningpo, China, 4 Noll, F., 160-161 Normal Education, 244 North Manitou Island, 178 Northampton, Massachusetts, 309 Northwestern University, 126 Noyes, William A . , 73 Nuttall, Thomas, 33, 148 Oak Park, Illinois, 292 Oaxaca, Mexico, 128, 148 Oberlin, Ohio, 1 3 1 , 159 Oels, Walter, 155 Ogden, Utah, 13-15 Ogden River, 15 Ohio Academy of Science, 161 Ohio Naturalist, 221, 255 Ohio River, 1-4, 6-7, 1 1 , 14, 29, 33-34, 36 Ohio State University, 59, 1 5 1 , 221, 254, 308 Ohio Wesleyan University, 10 Old Faithful Geyser, 17-18 Olney, S. T . , 20 Orcutt, Charles, 77, 172 Origin of Sfecies, 39, 44-45, 258, 294 Orton, W . A . , 204 Osborn, Herbert, 59 Osborne, James Insley, 67 Osterhout, Winthrop J., 179, 280 Outline of Genetics, 255 Owen, Richard, 73 Oxford, Ohio, 27 Oxford University, 193

Sta-

Pacific Grove, California, 229 Padua, Italy, 161 Paleobotany: A Sketch of the Origin and Evolution of Floras, 284 Palmer, Edward, 97, 150, 158, 172, 232 Palouse River, 228 Pammel, L. H., 219, 266 Paris, France, 161, 193 Parish brothers, 77, 225 Parry, Charles Christopher, 21, 25, 53, 77 Patterson, Alice Jean, 244 Patterson, Floyd W . , 204 Paxton, Thomas R., 8 Pearl, Raymond, 260 Peck, Charles H., 20, 26, 278 Penhallow, D a v i d P., 69, 163-164, 218, 240

133,

Pennell, Francis Whittier, 303 Perry, Lewis, 291

Nelson, E d w a r d Thomson, 10-12, 15, 30, 43 Nelson, E. W . , 128, 148 New Albany, Indiana, 34, 79, 103 New Brunswick, New Jersey, 263 Newberry, John Strong, 68, 81, 163, Newcombe, F. C., 219 New England Botanical Club, 212 New International Encyclopedia, 245 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment tion, 290 New Y o r k , New Y o r k , 9, 26, 94, 138, 172, 230, 267, 286 New Y o r k Agricultural Experiment tion, 64, 93-94, 123, 291 New Y o r k Botanical Garden, 90, 94,

317

273

Sta126,

318 Petoskey, Michigan, 14.9 Pfeffer, Wilhelm, 48, 156 Pfeiffer, Norma Etta, 308 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 58, 79, 299) 303, 306 Philalathean Society, 9 Phillippovich, Eugen, 193 Phillips Exeter Academy, 291 Phinney, A . J., 80 Phytopathology, 2 66 Pierce, G. F., 153 Pierce, Newton B., 204, 263 Pike's Peak, 22-23, 220, 283 Pinchot, Gifford, 283 Piper, Charles V., 248 Pittier, Henry, 303 Pittonia, 33, 90 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 220, 222 Plant Anatomy, 284 Plant Ecology, 279 Plant Genetics, 255-256, 258, 260, 302 Plant Life of Alabama, 219 Plant Physiology, 198, 285 Plant Relations, 173, 180, 186 Plant Structures, 173, 186-187 Plant Studies, An Elementary Botany, Plant World, 67, 1 7 1 , 175, 197, 219, 256, 284 Plants, A Textbook of Botany, 187 Piatt, Walter, 19 Pollard, C. L., 2 1 1 Popular Science Monthly, 42, 116, 245 Porter, Thomas Conrad, 20, 25-26,

Index

126,

262,

187 252,

Pringle, Cyrus Guernsey, 97, 106, 128, 133, 148, 232 Pringsheim, N., 48, 65 Proceedings of the Academy df Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 50 Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 44, 89, 91, 300 Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science, 99 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 74, 266, 275 Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 30 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 34, 75, 128, 206, 245, 298 Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 243 Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, 142 Proceedings of the Ohio Academy of Science, 255 Proceedings of the Washington Academy of Science, 175, 209 "Professor John Henry Schaffner," 1 6 1 , 222, 255 Purdue University, 35, 93, 95, 108, 1 1 5 , 1 5 5 - ^ 6 , 166, 227, 299, 308 Purpus, 232 Put-in-Bay, 221 Quetelet, L . A . J., 195 Quiatenon Club, 92

224, 30-

32, 43, 78, 89, 93, 219, 307 Porto Antonio, 168 Porto Rico, 172 Post, Lucy, 35 Postelsia, 221 Potlatch River, 228 Potter, Emily Stiles, 192 Pound, Roscoe, 1 1 7 - 1 1 9 , 1 4 1 , 173, 178, 220, 309 Practical Nature Study and Elementary Agriculture, 244 Prantl, K . , 67, 136, 158, 160, 1 7 1 , 214215 Pratt Institute Monthly, 186 Preliminary Revision of the North American Species of Cactus, Anhalonium and Lophophora, 128 Prentiss, Albert Nelson, 53, 62, 1 1 4 Presbyterian Seminary, 12, 25, 27 Priest River Forest Reserve, 228 Princeton, New Jersey, 259, 309 Princeton Theological Seminary, 2, 5 Princeton University, 259, 277, 309

Rabenhorst, L., 136 Rafinesque-Schmaltz,

Constantine

Samuel,

33, 148) 306 _ Ramaley, Francis, 305 Rand, E . L., 136-137 Rattan, Volney, 77 Rau, E . A . , 33 Raunkiaer, C., 279 Redfield, J. H., 26, 136-137 Reed, Howard S., 219, 309 Religious Education, 245, 269, 298 Religious Education Association, 237, 245 Review of Reviews, 103 Revision of Lilaeopsis, 167 Revision of North American Umbelliferae, 89, 91 Rhodora, 212 Rice Institute, 203 Riddell, John Leonard, 34 R i o Grande River, 218 Robbins, W . W . , 252 Roberts, H. F., 229 Roberts, William, 126, 205 Robertson, Agnes, 238 Robins, Raymond, 291

Index Robinson, Benjamin Lincoln, 105, 108, 132, 138-139, 149, 170, 192, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , 214, 248, 288, 300, 308 Rochester, Indiana, 103 Rochester, N e w Y o r k , 134-135, 137, 190 Rochester Code, 1 3 4 - 1 3 7 , 1 7 1 , 210, 212 Rockefeller, John D., 206, 286 Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 280, 286 Rodgers, Andrew Denny, 309 Rodgers, Mrs. Andrew Denny, 309 Rogers, Howard J., 201, 262 Rosario, Mexico, 167 Rose, Joseph Nelson, 82, 85, 88-91, 96, 98, 108, 126, 128, 130, 133, 135, 138, 148-150, 152, 158, 167, 169, 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 , 192, 206-210, 2 1 7 , 231-233, 241, 257, 287, 300, 303, 308 Rothrock, Joseph T r i m b l e , 33, 67, 77-78, 283 Rowlee, W . W . , 1 1 1 Royal Horticultural Society of England, 143 Rusby, H. H., 264 Rush Medical School, 126 Rutgers College, 203, 263 Rydberg, Per A x e l , 119, 215, 2 1 7 , 2x9, 279 Sachs, Julius, 48, 52, 66-67, 70, 1 3 1 , 156 St. Croix, 207 St. John's River, 120 St. Joseph River, 36 St. Louis, Missouri, 96, 119, 127, 200, 2 7 1 , 277 ^ St. Paul, Minnesota, 1 1 2 San Bernardino Mountains, 203, 225 San Diego, California, 203 Sand Hill Mountains, 17 Sandberg, J. H., 228 Sandusky Bay, 221 Sanford, Florida, 120 Santa Ana, California, 229 Santa Barbara, California, 309 Santa Catalina Island, 203, 207 Saporta, Count Gaston de, 68, 81 Sargent, Charles Sprague, 56, 2 1 1 , 248, 283 Saunders, Saunders, Saunders, Schaffner,

Charles, 282 De Alton, 225 William, 282 John Henry, 1 6 1 - 1 6 3 , 179, 221,

254-2S5 Schenck, C. A . , 160, 283 Schimper, K a r l , 68, 220 Schneck, Jacob, 34 School Review, The, n o , 235, 243 School Science and Mathematics, 201, 236, 249, 268, 275, 288

319

Schumann, K . , 232 Schiirhoff, P. N., 304-305 Science, 45, 69, 82, 1 5 1 , 164, 176, 179, 183, 186, 200, 2 1 1 , 213, 245, 247, 256, 262, 267, 270, 275, 286, 288, 299, 3°7 Scientific Monthly, 199, 290, 299, 301 Scott, D . H., 233 Scott, J. W . , 7-9 Scott County, Indiana, 34 Scovel, Dr., 3 Scribner, F. Lamson, 85, 262-263 Seaton, Henry Eliason, 82, 106, 108, 128 Seed World, 301 Selby, A . D., 263 Setchell, William Albert, 248 Seville Academy, 53 Seward, A . C., 233, 240, 273 Sharp, L . W . , 284 Shaw School of Botany, 96, 119-120 'Shelbyville, Kentucky, 2 Shimek, B., 219 Short, Charles Wilkin, 34 Shoshone Lake, 18 Shreve, Forrest, 198, 284, 309 Shriver, Howard, 32 Shull, Charles Albert, 257-258, 284 Shull, George Harrison, 145, 193, 231, _ 237, 256-260, 309 Sierra Madre Mountains, 23, 167 Sierra Nevada Mountains, 238 Silva of North America, 248 Slosson, Edwin E., 296 Small, J. K . , 203, 231 Smart, D r . James H., 94 Smith, E r w i n Frink, 120, 124, 204, 218, 262-263, 265 Smith, Jared Gage, 118, 204 Smith, John Donnell, 89, 96-98, 109, 149, 303 Smithsonian Institution, 19, 24, 167, 247, 308 Snake River, 15, 18 Society for Plant Morphology and Physiology, 143, 218, 220-224 Society for the Promotion of Agricultural Science, 53, 247 Soledad, Cienfuegos, Cuba, 46 Sonora, Mexico, 228 South Park, Colorado, 22-23 Spalding, Volney M . , 93, 160, 167, 176, 182, 219, 231, 252 Sfecies and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 197, 199 Spiceland, Indiana, 103 Springfield, Massachusetts, 1 5 1 , 212 Stanford Marine Biological Station, 229 Stanford University, 149

320

Index

State Teachers' Association of Nebraska, 114 Steubenville, Ohio, 6 Stevens, Frank Lincoln, 260, 266 Stevens, W . S., 284 Stevenson, James, 15, 17-19 Stewart, F. C., 263 Stockbridge, Levi, 205 Stopes, Marie C., 273 Strasburger, E., 67, 86, 107-108, 132, i j 6 157, 160-163, 179, 189, 255 Studies in Fossil Botany, 233 Sturtevant, Edward Lewis, 64, 94, 123 Sugar Greek, Indiana, 9 1 , 149 Sullivant, W i l l i a m Starling, 30 Sullivant Moss Society, 221 Supplement to the Monograph of the North American Umbelliferae, 241 Surveys, 15-22, 26, 32, 35, 68-69, 78, 81, 94, 105, 183, 208, 219, 252 Swain, Joseph, 104 Swezey, G. D., 166 Swingle, Walter T . , 120-121, 169, 204, 229, 281-282, 309 Synopsis of Mexican and Central American Umbelliferae, 175, 208 Synofsis of Plant Phyla, A, 246, 249 Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado, 25-26, 30, 78-79 Synoptical Flora of North America, 51, 92, 149, 158, 170 Syracuse University, 212, 308 T a g h e e Pass, 17 Tansley, A . G., 280 T a y l o r , William Alton, 204, 309 Tennessee Mountains, 219 Tennessee Pass, 23 Teton Mountains, 16-18, 22 Text Book of Botany, A, 237, 2 5 1 , 253 Thatcher, Roscoe W . , 291 Thaxter, Roland, 160, 173, 221, 263 Thiessen, Reinhardt, 273 Thomas, David, 33 Thomas, Thomas E., 8 Thompson, Harvey, 80, 82 Thompson, W . B., 286-289, 306 Thomson, S. Harrison, 7 Thurber, George, 26 Thuret, G., 45 Timberlake, Hamilton Greenwood, 132 Tippecanoe River, 36 T o k y o , Japan, 161 Toronto, Canada, 163, 169, 190, 295 T o r r e y , John, 15, 20, 23, 30, 53, 56, 89, 1 7 1 , 203, 246, 253, 3°4 T o r r e y Botanical Club, 279, 290, 300 Torreya, 213, 290 T o u m e y , J. W . , 172

T o w e r , William Lawrence, 261 Townshend, Norton B., 205 T r a c y , S. M . , 203 Transactions of Illinois Academy of Science, 249, 292 Transeau, E d g a r Nelson, 219, 2 3 1 , 252 Transylvania University, 2 Traverse Bay, Michigan, 149 Trees of California, 248 Trelease, William, 10, 83, 90, 96, 1 1 9 , 127, 130, 135, 160, 225, 232, 278, 289, 307-308 T r e u b , M . , 121, 157, 169 T r i n i t y College, 193 T r o w b r i d g e , John, 47 T r u e , Rodney, 204 Tschermak, E . von, 143, 281 Tubingen, Germany, 156 Tucson, Arizona, 197, 228, 309 Turner, H. H., 193 T u r r i l l , Frank H., 32 T w i n Lakes, Colorado, 23 T w i t c h e l l , Ida, 59 Uintah Mountains, 32 Uline, Edwin B., 108-109, i*7> i3*> 148, 152 Underwood, Lucien, 94, 98-99, 134, 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 , 222-223, 230 Union Literary Society, 7, 9, 12, 38 United States Bureau of Plant Industry, 204, 243, 264, 267, 281, 309 United States Department of Agriculture, 19, 26, 32, 63, 97-98, 106, 1 1 7 , 120, 123, 127, 138, 145, 148, 166, 172, 2 1 7 , 225, 229, 236, 247, 263, 265, 281, 287, 291, 309 United States National Herbarium, 19, 26, 1 7 1 , 2 1 7 , 241, 248 United States National Museum, 287, 308 Universities o f : Arizona, 228, 2 4 9 ; Bonn, 306; California, 118, 122, 197, 203, " 7 , 3°4, 3°9> Chicago, 53, m , 1 1 7 , 125-126, 131, 148, 150-153, 1 5 7 - 1 5 9 , 161, 1 6 8 - 1 7 1 , 1 7 4 - 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 - 1 8 1 , 183, 187-188, 190, 193, 197, 200, 206-207, 227, 242-243, 245, 254, 257-259, 261, 272, 285-286, 289-290, 298, 300, 302, 306, 308; Illinois, 48, 63, 153, 2 1 1 , 259, 289, 3085 Indiana, 1 5 5 ; Indianapolis, 1 5 4 ; Iowa, 1535 Kansas, 299; Maryland, 1 1 7 5 Michigan, 48, 53, 1601 6 1 , 202, 2 3 1 , 309; Minnesota, 32, 60, 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , 155, 166; Montana, 228; Nebraska, 57, 1 1 2 - 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 , 121, 139, x45> 249-250; Pennsylvania, 67, 2035 Pittsburgh, 288; Texas, 1 7 7 ; Wisconsin, 6 ° i 93> 9J> r 53> 180, 291, 3095 W y o m i n g , 214, 216-217

Index University Record, The, 193, 298 Urbana, Illinois, 259 Ute Pass, 22 Vail, Anna M u r r a y , 231 Vancouver, B.C., 221 Van Deman, H. E., 205 Vanderbilt, 172 Vasey, George, 20, 33, 96, 138, 300 Vegetation der Erde, Die, 160, 279 Vera Cruz, Mexico, 233 Vermilion Lake, 94 Vesque, J., 65 Vienna, Austria, 192-193, 2 1 3 - 2 1 4 , 216, 248 Vines, S. H., 67, 156 Virginia City, Montana, 17 Vochting, Hermann, 156 von Riimker, K . , 281 von Schrenck, Hermann, 204 Voth, Paul Dirks, 308 Wabash Academy, 49 Wabash College, 37-38, 43, 47, 49) 66-67, 73, 82-85, 89, 102, 106, 108, 116, 127, 136, 308 Wabash College, The First Hundred Years, 1832-1932,

67

Wabash River, 29, 34 Waite, M . B., 282 Wallace, A l f r e d Russell, 84, 197 Wallace, Henry, 91 Wallace, L e w , 91 Waller, Adolph E., 161, 222, 255, 308 Ward, H. Marshall, 1 6 1 , 264 Ward, Lester, 69, 163 Warming, Eugen, 157, 161, 178, 220 Warsaw, Indiana, 307 Wasatch Mountains, 14-15 Washington, D.C., 19, 25, 27, 32, 63, 9697, 99-100, 120, 122, 138, 148, 158, 167, 172, 175, 193, 208, 217, 220-221, 224, 238, 241, 248, 287, 308 Washington Academy of Sciences, 225, 243 Watson, Sereno, 25-26, 33, 45, 5 1 , 71, 7778, 88-93, 96-97, 99, 108, 132-133, 139, 308 Waugh, Frank A . , 205 Waveland, Indiana, 6 W a y n e County, Ohio, 52 Weatherby, C. A . , 308-309 Webber, Herbert John, 1 1 7 , i i 9 - i z 3 l 145, 172, 189, 204, 256, 282, 309 Weber Canyon, 13 Weber River, 15 Weismann, A . , 144, 162, 259, 262 Western College, 27 Wheeler, C. F., 32 Wheeler, W . A . , 219 Where Evolution and Religion Meet,

305

321

Whetzel, Herbert Hice, 263 White, David, 273 Whitford, Harry Nichols, 219, 248, 283 Whitman, Charles O., 131 Whitten, J. C., 205 Wickson, E d w a r d J., 205 Wiegand, K . M . , 1 1 2 Wieland, G. R., 69, 244-245, 273, 284 Wiesner, J., 48, 193, 220 W i l d Flower Preservation Society, 247 Willey, Harvey W . , 73 Willey, Henry, 20, 26 Williams, R. S., 225 Williams, T . F. A . , 204 Wilmington, Delaware, 47 Wilson, E. B., 1 2 1 , 131 Wilson, James, 32 Wilson, Woodrow, 267 Winchell, Alexander, 48 Winchell, N.H., 31 Winnipeg, Canada, 241 Winona, Indiana, 192-193 Winona Lake, Indiana, 241 Wisconsin River, 30 Wittrock, V., 161 Wood, Alphonso, 10, 51 Wood, James, 7 Woodburn, James Albert, 102 Woods, Albert Frederick, 1 1 7 , 119, 121, 124, 141, 179, 204, 263, 309 Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 131, 149-150, 198, 229 Wooster, Ohio, 52 World Was My Garden, The. Travels of a Plant Exflorer, 229 Wright, A . A . , 131 Wright, G. Frederick, 40, 77 Wright, W . G., 225 Wyandotte Cave, Indiana, 79 Yakutat Bay, 225 Yale Peak, Colorado, 23 Y a l e University, 9-10, 15, 30, 218, 277 Yarnell, Mrs. Edward R., 307 Yellowstone Falls, 19 Yellowstone Geyser, 24 Yellowstone Lake, 18 Yellowstone National Park, 15, 17, 20, 247 Yellowstone River, 16 Yonkers, New Y o r k , 286-287, 289-290, 300, 302, 307-308 Yosemite Park, 305 Youman, 51 Y o u n g , A . Harvey, 1 1 , 30, 32, 34 Yucatan, 207, 232 Zeiss, 107