The Collection of Material for Research-Work

The chaotic condition of North-western botany has already been alluded to. This condition has been largely brought about by Western botanists, who, it seems, endeavour to describe every variation as a separate species. Many of our Western species are based on very artificial characters, and have often been described and named from insufficient material, and with little information regarding the specimens. Later botanists, with a fuller knowledge of the species, have followed up such descriptions, and in some cases have considered it necessary to change the names previously given. There are many Western species which we have good reason to believe are based on forms characteristic of particular environments, and evidently most of these new species are described from herbarium material and the few notes accompanying them, and not from a practical knowledge of the specimens in the field.

One instance of this may be mentioned. Near Vancouver we have a parasitic or saprophytic plant, which, on the whole, corresponds with the description of Newberrya congesta, Torr. Our specimens were at first believed to be Pleuricospora fimbriata, and (when full and accurate details regarding the ovary of Newberrya are available) they may yet prove to belong to this genus.

Whether our specimens be Newberrya or Pleuricospora, one at least of the generic distinctions must be cancelled. It will be seen in the following table of variation that plant 1 has all its flowers with the characteristic calyx of Newberrya; while in plants 2 and 3 we find considerable variation in the flowers of the same plant, some having the two bract-like sepals, others having either one or two smaller scale-like sepals in addition, thus corresponding in number to those of Pleuricospora.

Considering that the calyx was too variable to be of much value as a generic character, I turned my attention to the structure of the ovary, and, through the kindness of Dr. C. F. Newcombe, of Victoria, obtained a copy of the original description of Hemitomes congestum, together with a photo and tracing of the illustration accompanying the description. In this I found that the structure of the ovary was largely conjecture, that Dr. Gray had not sufficient material to ascertain its structure, as he mentions that it is founded on a fragmentary specimen, and he hopes that further specimens may come to hand to confirm or correct his analysis. He, however, expressed no doubt regarding the structure of the anthers, and, from their being apparently one-celled, based the name Hemitomes on this.

At a later date Dr. Torrey obtained good specimens of this plant and ascertained that the anthers were not one-celled as Dr. Gray described them, but that they were distinctly two-celled, hence Hemitomes was quite inapplicable, and Dr. Torrey changes the name to Newberrya in honour of the first discoverer of the plant.

Several species of this genus, all of them Western, have been described, and some have evidently been described from fragmentary specimens; one species, I believe, had never been found before, and has not been found since.

It seemed most natural, then, that information regarding the structure of the ovary should next be sought from the descriptions of other species of Newberrya, and finding that Prof. E. L. Greene, of the Smithsonian Institution, had described one under the name Hemitomes pumilum, I communicated with him requesting a copy of the original description of this, and also of N. subterranea, described by Miss Alice Eastwood, of the California Academy of Sciences. Professor Greene kindly acceded to this request; and in a recent visit of Miss Eastwood to this office, further information was obtained regarding her specimens.

A point which should be noted is that Dr. Gray, in his description, referred to the apparently unusual character of the ovary, but he stated clearly that he had so little material to work on that he was not certain as to the structure. It seems strange, therefore, that in the descriptions of subsequent species there is practically no information regarding the structure of the ovary; none of them indicate whether it agrees with, or differs from, the original description of Hemitomes congestum; so that the true structure of the ovary of Newberrya still remains to be definitely ascertained.

The plant in our neighbourhood has a very different habit from the illustration accompanying Dr. Gray's description, the number of stamens has little or no relationship to the number of petals; but the illustration of the flower is almost identical with ours, and the description of the plant agrees fairly well with our specimens. (Fig. 36.)

The structure of the ovary in our specimens somewhat resembles that found in Papaveraceae, being unilocular, with a variable number of carpels having superficial placentation.

A considerable amount of variation was found in the number of parts in some of the whorls. The following table shows the results found in eighteen flowers taken from three plants:

From the above it will be noticed: (1)That the number of stamens seems to have some relation to the number of carpels; (2)that there is considerable variation in flowers of the same plant; and (3)that some plants are more constant than others. In addition to this, there is also considerable variation in the size of the specimens, ranging from 2-12 cm. in height.

Our specimens are found on mountain-slopes at an altitude of from 1,000 to 2,000 feet in shady woods composed of fir and hemlock, and in association with Monotropa uniflora. The exposure is south by south-east.

Abundant opportunities and material were available for the study of the specimens found here, and if those species, other than N. congesta, are to be regarded as valid, there are sufficient differences to warrant the description of our local plant as a new species. But it is often easier to see differences than resemblances, and I am of the opinion that much more valuable work is done by those botanists who devote most attention to tracing existing relationships between apparently different species than is done by those who magnify differences seen in immature or abnormal specimens.

No one with a knowledge of the relation of plants to environment would hesitate to say that our plant, if grown in a slightly warmer atmosphere, would elongate, becoming more lax and the scales more fully expanded, so that the habit would ultimately approach that shown in Dr. Gray's illustration. Similarly, if grown in drier or more open environment, the plant becomes dwarf and congested, approaching N. pumila (Greene). If dug up before it appears through the ground, it approaches N. subterranea (Eastwood), which, it is stated, is remarkable on account of its flowering 3 inches beneath the surface of the ground. In this connection it may be mentioned that our specimens, like most other Monotropeae, have their flowers formed before they appear through the ground.

The question suggests itself: Is it possible that the plants which Dr. Gray described under Pleuricospora may have been fully developed specimens of the one described by him thirteen years before under the name Newberrya, and that the other species may only be different stages or forms of this very variable plant ?

This subject of variation within the limits of a single species is one which has attracted my attention for many years, and ever since my coming to British Columbia I have been struck with the abundant opportunities afforded for research in this direction. My observations have led me to view with suspicion many of our so-called species, especially those based on such transient characters as habit, pubescence, form of leaf, and other points related to environment.

In order to study this subject systematically, collections of herbarium and garden specimens are being made, so that the validity of many of these "species" may be substantiated or refuted.

Commencing with individual specimens, it is proposed to grow them in our Botanical Garden, and secure seeds, from which plants will be grown for supplies to study the range of variation in the offspring, and so ascertain if the selected points of difference are permanent characters. Some species of Carex, Salix, Viola, Lupinus, Aster, Arnica, Gaillardia, Pentstemon, etc., are genera which require systematic study.

While collecting in the Dry Belt during the summer of 1913 a number of different forms of, evidently, Opuntia polyacantha were found. In the illustration four of these are shown.

It seems that the type O. polyacantha and a variety borealis have been recorded for this district. Careful observations of these forms were made in the field, and there were found transition forms leading gradually from the typical flat-jointed forms to the almost spherical-jointed ones. Some curious elongated finger-like forms were believed to be young plants, but in other places some small, apparently young, specimens were found which did not develop into similar cylindrical joints. Supplies of the different forms—about eight altogether - were sent to the Botanical Garden to be cultivated and afterwards compared with each other in all their stages.

In addition to those cacti from the Dry Belt, another collection from Bare Island was received from one of our correspondents. Bare Island, near Vancouver Island, is separated from the Dry Belt by a wide stretch of moist coast country, and in a few situations in this neighbourhood Opuntia thrives vigorously on exposed rocky habitats. The material collected from both these areas will enable a comparative study to be made of these various forms, and ascertain whether they are forms in transition or whether the intermediate forms may be hybrids.