← Back to results
Page 117 · DO #4777 · 231_Rogers_Bx5FF27_r
- Collection
-
David James Rogers (1918–2007) papers
- Item/Folder
-
Correspondence - NRC Comm. on Germplasm, 1977
- Digital Object
-
DO #4777,
page 117
- Collection-level dates
- 1948–1977
Page transcription
- 7 -
Anyone who has had the opportunity to compare several of the more important botanical gardens cannot fail to be struck by their uniformity in tradition and function. In the Americas and Europe, if not everywhere, they are largely nineteenth-century institutions in genesis, created and shaped to meet the demand for popular education at a period when world travel was restricted to the few but knowledge was available to the masses. Thus they are the parallels of the Victorian museum; in many respects the museum and garden evolved together. Botanical gardens became citadels of certain kinds of important research, that which involved studies of diversity and the cultivation and propagation of living plants. They were not thought of as instruments of plant conservation, mainly because in the height of their expansion, the widespread Victorian optimism extended over the whole field of world resources, all of which seemed inexhaustible.
Although rare plants were often cultivated, the botanist seldom viewed his action as preservation of the stock for posterity, and the garden in which such plants were grown hardly ever maintained records. Regrettably, most botanical gardens continue to operate on this level. In contrast to their potential, any true conservation role they fill is small, secondary, and seldom well documented. Increasingly, botanists are challenged by this deplorable state of affairs, and their swelling ranks now include some who direct botanical gardens and determine their program priorities.
What can botanical gardens do to promote a better understanding of the endangered species problem and to actually conserve genetic resources?
