entirely divorced from industry it has drifted toward pure speculation. The geologists of the past, like those of the present, received much of their inspiration from the fact that they were adding to the material welfare of mankind. Werner, Humboldt, Von Buch, De la Beche were not only trained as mining engineers, but continued for most of their careers to be intimately connected with the mining industry. Desmarest devoted most of his life to promoting the industrial advancement of France. William Smith was an engineer before he was a geologist, and even Hutton knew from personal experience the value of applying the sciences of agriculture and chemistry. On this continent McClure, Eaton, Rodgers, Owen, Leslie, Logan, Whitney, Orton, Cook, Dawson, and King, with a host of others, were all identified with the industrial application of their science. The elder Silliman, in an account of his own training in geology, said, "I learned in the mining districts how and what to observe." The years that Dana spent on explorations may be counted in the field of applied geology. James Hall, for two generations the leader in American geology and the founder of that organization which for three-quarters of a century has preserved the highest scientific ideals, gained his early inspiration in studying practical problems. An enumeration of the leading geologists of the present generation will, I think, show that the larger part have given much attention to the material application of geology. The recent economic trend of geology is only a counterpart of similar tendencies in most fields of scientific research. The introduction of science into practical affairs is a feature of the present age. It has come about not only because as the sciences progressed their results were more directly applicable to material problems, but more specially because of the gradually changing conditions throughout the world. With a sparse population and abundance of natural resources the need of applied science is never so evident as when the lands become crowded and the more readily accessible resources depleted. The people of a virgin land need pay small heed to exhaustion of soil or destruction of forests, and can carry on shallow mining operations with little recourse to science or technology. It is only when increasing population results in a demand for a greater food supply and makes sanitation important, when the depletion of timber becomes a factor in cost of structures, and the superficial deposits can no longer yield sufficient minerals, that the need of scientific knowledge becomes strongly emphasized. This stage has been reached in most of the civilized countries of the world to a greater or less extent, and the evils of relative overpopulation and depletion of nature's wealth are resulting in an appeal to applied science. China stands alone among the great nations of the world in not utilizing scientific thought to better the conditions of her people. The present turmoil in China can probably be interpreted, in the last analysis, as a protest against the affairs of state being guided by the classicist rather than by the scientist. While we may criticize China for not accepting the dictum of science, we have only recently departed from a similar attitude, though our abundant resources have made our own faults less conspicuous. In this respect the present generation has made greater strides than all that preceded. We are now applying science to the affairs of the Nation as never before. The old-fashioned publicist, with his classical education or, at least, traditions, is being shouldered out of the way by the man who analyzes the problems of public welfare on scientific principles. The trained investigator is being more and more appealed to in the affairs of the Nation. In this we are following Germany, whose long leadership in pure science has now been overshadowed by her leadership in applied science. We have begun to realize that it is one thing to win prosperity and happiness out of the bounty of a new land, another to gain it by utilizing resources which can only be made available by scientific genius. Mr. Gilbert has said that "pure science is fundamentally the creature and servant of the material needs of mankind." Yet it is not uncommon to find the devotee of pure science assuming that his field is on a higher plane than that of those studying problems which involve the material welfare of the human race. This seems specially true in the field of geology. If a bacteriologist finds a new toxin for a disease germ, a botanist a new food plant, a sanitary engineer a measure for preserving human life, all unite in commending his work. Yet there are not a few geologists, though I believe a constantly decreasing number, who seem to view with suspicion any attempt to make the science of geology more useful. Those who are devoting themselves to economic geology are charged with commercializing the science, as if the applying of its principles to better the conditions of the people were not the highest use to which scientific research could be put. One reason for this attitude is because much which has been masquerading as applied geology is not science at all. The commercial exploitation of natural resources under the cloak of geology is not to be confounded with geologic research that has for its aims the application of scientific principles to the needs of man. The geologist who is studying the resources of the public domain to the end that a sound policy may be adopted for their utilization, or he who is gaging the exhaustion of our mineral wealth by studying statistics of production, is doing his share of scientific work no less than he who is engaged in the more pleasing task of evolving new geologic principles. The masters of the science have not hesitated to turn their attention to economic problems. Clarence King deserves no less credit for his aid in opening up the West by economic investigations than for his contributions to knowledge on the age of the earth. We think of Maj. Powell as one of the founders of physiographic geology, but his memory will live rather for employing science to make available the latent fertility of the arid regions of the West. Surely no one will charge King or Powell with commercializing their science. As I see it, there lies no danger in the present trend toward applied geology, provided our applied geology rests on a broad basis of scientific research. If the spring of pure science is cut off, the stream of applied geology must soon run dry. There is no field of pure geology which will not yield results applicable to questions of material welfare. On the other hand, any given investigation in applied geology may lead to problems of paleontology, petrography, geophysics, or other branches of pure science. In view of the pressing demand for results, we are justified in giving precedence to those fields of investigation which promise the earliest returns of material value. There is, however, grave danger that, carried away by the present furor for practical results, we may lose sight of our scientific ideals. Applied geology can only maintain its present high position of usefulness by continuing the researches which advance the knowledge of basic principles. Future progress in applied geology depends on progress in pure geology. THE RELATIONS OF PALEOBOTANY TO GEOLOGY. By Dr. F. H. KNOWLTON, Although there is vague mention of fossil plants in literature as early as the thirteenth century, and unscientific adumbrations in the faintly growing twilight of the succeeding centuries, the real science of paleobotany did not have its beginning until well on in the nineteenth century. With the publication, in 1828, of Brongniart's "Histoire des végétaux fossiles" and the "Prodrome," there was given to paleobotany "that powerful impetus which found its immediate recognition and called into its service a large corps of colaborers with Brongniart, rapidly multiplying its literature and increasing the amount of material for its further study" (Ward). In the succeeding decades, even to the close of the century, the students of paleobotany were mainly occupied in accumulating data as regards distribution, both areal and vertical, and the opening decades of the present century find the subject a recognized, respected, coequal part of the general field of paleontology. Paleobotany, together with all the other branches of paleontology, admits of subdivision into two lines or fields of study the biological and the geological-depending upon the prominence given to the one or the other of these phases of the subject. The biological study is, of course, concerned especially with the evolution of the vegetable kingdom, that is, with the tracing of the lines of descent through which the living flora has been developed. As this side of the question will be taken up by other contributors to this discussion, it may be dismissed from further consideration, as the geological aspect is almost exclusively the phase of the subject to which the present paper is devoted. In the first place it will be necessary to call attention to the fact that the successful use of fossils of any kind as stratigraphic marks is or at least may be entirely independent of their correct biological interpretation. To most botanists, and indeed to some paleobotanists, this statement will doubtless come as a surprise, since they have come to imagine that the impressions of plants, the form 1 Reprinted by permission from The American Naturalist, vol. 46, April, 1912. in which they are most made use of in this connection, are so indefinite, indistinct, and unreliable that they can not be allocated biologically with even reasonable certainty, and hence are of little or no value. As a matter of fact hardly anything could be further from the truth, and it can be confidently stated that it makes not the slightest difference to the stratigraphic geologist whether the fossils upon which he most relies are named at all, so long as the horizon whence they come is known and they are clearly defined and capable of recognition under any and all conditions. They might almost as well be referred to by number as by name, so long as they fill the requirements above demanded, though of course every stratigraphic paleontologist seeks to interpret to the very best of his knowledge the fossils he studies. He may doubtless often doesmake mistakes in his attempts to understand them, but his errors are undoubtedly fewer than he is not infrequently charged with. His faculty of observation is rendered acute from the close study of the restricted and often fragmentary material available, and he has learned to see and make use of characters which are often overlooked or wholly neglected by the botanist. The latter, even when he has before him the complete living plant, including root, stem, and foliar and reproductive organs, sometimes experiences difficulty in correctly placing his subject, and, to judge from some recent work, there are paleobotanists who study only the internal structure of fossil plants and yet are beset with extreme difficulty in interpreting their biological significance. It may then be taken as settled that the needs of the stratigraphic geologist will be met if he is supplied with a series of marks or tokens by which he may unfailingly identify the various geological horizons with which he deals, while to the historical geologist who makes use of fossils in unraveling the succession of geological events the correct biological identification is of the greatest importance, for upon this rests his interpretation of the succession of faunas and floras that have inhabited the globe. As the late Dr. C. A. White has said, "If fossils were to be treated only as mere tokens of the respective formations in which they are found, their biological classification would be a matter of little consequence, but their broad signification in historical geology, as well as in systematic biology, renders it necessary that they be classified as nearly as possible in the manner that living animals and plants are classified." While it is in no way desired to overlook or underestimate the biologic value of such fossil plants as have fortunately retained their internal structure in condition for successful study, it is probably safe to say that their value to geology as compared with the impressions of plants is as 1 to 1,000, and had we only the former there never could have been developed the science of stratigraphic paleo |