Search

1 The Patriots of Horticulture: An Introduction 2 The Translation of Antiquity: Pliny and Virgil 3 A Grove of Venerable Oaks: John Evelyn and his Contemporaries 4 Things of a Natural Kind: Shaftesbury and the Concept of Nature 5: Rural and Extensive Landscape: Switzer and Ingentia Rura 6 Evergreens and American Plants: The Earl of Islay at Whitton and The Duke of Richmond at Goodwood 7 Painting with Living Pencils: Lord Petre 8 The Practical Part of Gardening: Botanists, Gardeners and Designers 9 Gardeners: Forest Trees for Use and Ornament 10 Nature's Still Improv'd But Never Lost: Philip Southcote and Woburn Farm 11 Prospects and the Natural Beauties of Places: Joseph Spence 12 Smoothing or Brushing the Robe of Nature: William Shenstone and The Leasowes 13 None but Real Professors: A Conclusion.

This dictionary is a reference work on all aspects of the study of plants. With more than 5000 entries, it should be valuable to students, amateur botanists and naturalists, and everyone with an interest in plants and their environments. Many of the entries have been taken from the "Oxford Dictionary of Natural History", but each one has been scrutinized thoroughly and, where necessary, amended or rewritten to adapt it to the new dictionary. A substantial number of new entries have been added in the areas of ecology, plant physiology, biochemistry, cytology, and genetics, and other subjects covered include biogeography, evolution, Earth history and the Earth sciences. There are also brief biographical notes on some of the most eminent botanists of the past. The dictionary provides world-wide coverage of taxonomic groups and takes full account of recent taxonomical revisions. One-third of the entries are devoted to taxa, from bacteria and fungi to the main groups of flowering and non-flowering plants.

Today we have heard a series of papers on the developments that have transpired in the past 25 years in the several major disciplines of botany. The recounting of events, highlights, and the work of individuals that have brought their respective fields to their present state of knowledge is in fact the basic materials for the history of botany as a distinct discipline. In a broader context, the endeavor of science, by its nature, is progressive and directive; building on what came before, discarding what is unsound in the light of new information, and finding new approaches or new theories of explanation. History, on the other hand, is reportive and analytical; the good and the bad, the successful and the unsuccessful, as well as the progressive and the retrogressive all deserve consideration. The historian of science faces a dilemma. Should he make value judgments about the course of history saying this line was "good" or that one "bad" or "retrogressive"? Too often it has been shown that the bias of a particular time changes, and what was thought "good" at one time is thought later or by someone else to not be as "good." Further complications of interpretation arise in the breadth of approach made to the study of the history of science or to a particular science. For example, the history of botany, or mycology, or radiation botany could be considered by its students as only consisting of the events and concepts within that science-what is termed internal history. On the other hand, the student might consider the events in the science and its concepts in the broader stage of human activities as they relate directly or indirectly to the history of his science-what is termed external history. How should the historian of botany interpret the changes that have taken place in his science? As a series of sudden overthrows of established theory, procedure, and persons by the new challengers; as a series of revolutions as proposed by Thomas Kuhn (1970)? Or should he interpret the historical

ALONG with the study of the development of ancient literature may not inappropriately go that of the unfolding of other phases of ancient life and thought, such as constitutional, military, and aesthetic history, and that of the different branches of science. Perhaps the most satisfactory treatment of the sciences is not that by those classical students who know little or nothing of the sciences in question, nor yet by those scientific specialists who are unable at first hand to control the ancient sources, but by persons who may not claim foremost rank in either field but yet are competent to make an intelligent synthesis of both the ancient and the modern. It is with this presupposition that I shall attempt to sketch briefly some of the main features in the development of ancient botany.' The Greeks were interested in tracing the invention of the various arts and sciences and in naming their pioneers, and a list of such in Cramer's Anecdota Oxoniensia2 names Euclid for geometry, Demosthenes for rhetoric, and, among others, Apelles for botany. Who this Apelles was, however, or where and when he flourished I find no evidence; he is what modern botanists-in another sense-call a nomen nudum. Hebrew tradition (1 Kings 4.33) made King Solomon a founder of botanical and zoological nomenclature. The recognition of plant forms in archaeological remains-a large and fascinating topic, whether dealing with Cretan frescos, Attic vasepaintings, plant-symbols on ancient coins,3 or lotus and acanthus in the capitals of columns-I must here omit, and begin with purely literary materials.

An introductory bibliography for the Arizona flora but from which "many titles have been omitted purposely" was given by Prof. J. W. Harshberger in his "Phytogeographical Survey of North America" (Engler and Drude, Die Vegetation der Erde XIII) published in 1911. The Arizona items must be culled from "Section V. Southwestern Arid States and Great Basin" (pp. 7578) of his larger division "Special Works on the Territories." In the intervening quarter of a century since its publication there have appeared in a wide assortment of books and periodicals, botanical and non-botanical, scientific and popular, numerous articles of varying value on the flora of the region. To include these more recent contributions and to exhume the older less familiar references is the object of the present bibliography covering an eightysix year period (1848-1934). Here the emphasis has been at all times taxonomic and floristic but with such entries added from zoological fields as might prove of supplementary botanical value. Books or papers on the flora of adjacent states or of a monographic nature, when these give only scattered references to Arizona species, are excluded with exception of ferns. Likewise articles treating of a single species except when peculiarly Arizonan, accounts essentially agricultural or economic, or papers 'of an ecological nature based on a few species not signally Arizonan though emanating from that state, are not included. On the other hand papers including assorted new species or miscellaneous notes which might from their titles be unsuspected of yielding Arizona references have, so far as discovered, been included. Annotations are freely given, particularly for those titles which do not convey an adequate idea of their scope or contents, as well as occasional comment of the compiler relative to the prospect for the user. Certain unpublished theses of the University of Arizona are included. Under the opportunities of inter-library loan these papers, often of pertinent merit, are available to a wider group of readers than commonly realized. Newspaper articles of C. C. Parry, the conciliatory pilgrim of botany across emergent West-America, are of exceeding interest and value in certain problems of fixing the origin of his critical collections. It is unfortunate that these are not widely available. Papers on cryptogamic botany have not been religiously searched out, but all that have come to my notice are included. A few titles have not been seen; these are indicated in all cases with the source furnishing the entry. Two indices conclude the bibliography: a geographic index and one to authors. The available longer papers for any part of the state and the year or years of publication for an author may be quickly ascertained by the use of these guides. For these suggestions I am indebted to the admirable ornithological bibliographies of Prof. Joseph Grinnell. P. C. Standley has prepared an annotated bibliography to the botany of New Mexico (Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 13:229-246, with 430

Taxonomy and ecology; proceedings of an international symposium held at the Dept. of Botany, University of Reading , Taxonomy and ecology; proceedings of an international symposium held at the Dept. of Botany, Univers... , مرکز فناوری اطلاعات و اطلاع رسانی کشاورزی

Cladistics, the estimation of the relative recency of common ancestry, and thus of the branching pattern of phyletic lines, is a challenge of growing interest among plant systematists. Discussed in depth are two approaches to this challenge: minimizing the amount of evolution; and maximizing the number of suppor-ting

It would be unrewarding to attempt to summarize the rich sampling of perspectives in tropical botany that has been provided by the five papers in this symposium. Each should be read for what it has to offer in insight and in vistas for future research. In these concluding remarks, I wish instead to offer some thoughts on the general state of tropical research, and to attempt to put them into a global perspective. Judged from statistics about relatively well known groups of animals and plants, there are likely to be about twice as many species of any group in the tropics as in temperate regions. About 1.5 million kinds of organisms have been given names during the first 225 years of our effort to do this, and there are probably at least twice as many that remain to be named. Of these, perhaps two-thirds of the estimated 1.5 million organisms of temperate regions have been named, but no more than one in five of those in the tropics. In 1975, the following estimates of cumulative destruction of tropical forest were made by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of UNESCO (Sommer, 1976)

fascination with depicting flora in fidelity to nature served to enhance the settings of many of his paintings. In addition, his plant studies can be evaluated as specimen pictures of botanical verisimilitude and, equally important, as integral works of art. Traditionally, flowers, plants and trees all were adjunct, supportive motifs in Christian historiated art and were considered important primarily for their symbolic meaning. This is quite unlike Roman art, where they appeared as subject matter, often without accompanying figures. Most of Leonardo's drawings of plants as sole subjects were preparatory studies for his figure paintings, one extant exception being a study for his never-completed Treatise on Botany [2]. The formal and compositional integrity of his plant

The need for experimental data to determine the taxo- nomic relationships within Polemonium foliosissimum A. Gray was indicated by previous works dealing with the genus. A synthesis of the data, gleaned from systematic studies, indicated the presence of four closely related taxa, which were assigned varietal rank. These varieties were: var. flavum (Greene) Comb. nov.; var. foliosissimum (A. Gray) Comb. nov.; var. Molle (Greene) Comb. nov.; and var. alpinum (Brand) Comb. nov.

Guidelines for preparing and mounting specimens of Cyclanthaceae, as well as a key to the genera, are presented in order to facilitate collecting of a difficult and often neglected family. In general, specimens should be prepared so the depth of the leaf division is apparent and the lower surface of the basal part of the leaf is visible or accessible. The family Cyclanthaceae has far fewer species than the other related families of large intractable monocots for which guides to the preparation of herbarium specimens have recently been published (Croat, 1985; Dransfield, 1986; Stone, 1983). Nevertheless, in much of the wet lowlands of the Neotropics the cyclanths form a very conspicuous element of the understory and epiphyte flora (Figs. 1, 2). Careful collecting in almost any area of wet primary forest often yields new species because the family is poorly represented in herbaria and many species are narrowly endemic. This paper is a call for more collections as well as a guide to help insure that they be properly prepared.

ever-increasing number of accounts of techniques for the handling of very large quantities of biological data. In botanical work this flow starts with the pioneer studies of Williams & Lambert (1959). Against the undoubted refinements of modern techniques it seems prudent to balance their proliferation; increased sophistication of computer methods is not necessarily associated with greater clarity and utility of the resulting classifications. Many workers have pointed out that the ability of computers to sift data in no way relieves the biologist of his responsibility for the choice of criteria or careful judgement of the results. Computer taxonomy and ecology do not really pose the same problems, although they have often been confused (notice the frequent use of the blanket term 'numerical taxonomy'.) In taxonomy the units considered are individual organisms which must be grouped, usually hierarchically. At any level in the hierarchy the possible variations on the theme are very limited; the viability of the individual and the natural boundaries of the taxon establish its limits. Even where, in 'difficult' taxa, the individual groups merge into one another, there always develop eventually more or less clearly marked natural discontinuities which are inevitably picked out whether the techniques used are those of the classical taxonomist, the experimental taxonomist or the computer taxonomist. Within the groups defined by these discontinuities there is little room available for manoeuvering; the morphogenetic processes involved in the development of viable individuals presumably leave little to chance. The commonly drawn analogy to this of ecological community structures has generally appealed to analysts of botanical data; the analogy needs justification. It is doubtful if discontinuities of a similar sort are to be found among plant communities; however closely a plant is integrated with its environment, it seems unlikely that the integration can be as great as that of, say, a particular chromosome configuration, the development pattern of the auditory apparatus or the functioning of a multiple allele sterility system within their individual animals or plants. All of these are, or can give rise to, criteria used in the taxonomy of organisms. The occurrence of such characters in animals or plants is definitive of the organisms concerned, and leaves little room for chance inclusion or omission. The interest in the phytosociological analyses of plant communities lies in the overall facies of the communities, and not in the presence or absence of any particular species. Yet the techniques available depend essentially on such presence or absence data, or at best on some estimate of the abundance of the species