Hunt Institute Archives Text Discovery Platform

Page transcription

FURTHER NOTES ON THE OCTOBER 1956 PROGRAM
OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM.

The "evaluation" sent to the Visiting Committee under date of January 10th questioned
and criticized many parts of the director's program. Space did not permit discussion of
methods needed to make any parts of the program effective, or what other important activities would be needed to make the Arboretum carry out its obligations to horticulture.

No one has questioned the value of the botanical work of the present or of the past
quarter century. The question has been and remains - is it proper to allow it to absorb the
attention of such a great majority of the scientific staff to the exclusion of a really
dynamic and advanced horticultural research program focused on the needs of New England?

Here, then, are further questions about the program and suggestions as to how certain
parts of it might be carried out.

I. Education

A. The director's program says: By exhibiting a comprehensive collection of hardy
woody plants. To do this properly the grounds should be replanned by a competent landscape
architect (such as the nearby Olmsted firm which made the original design). To replan might
include changes of or additions to roads, taking out duplicate or injured trees, or increasing
the space given to some genera, and decreasing the space for other genera. If the collection is to be really comprehensive, the total genera and species represented will have
to be checked with herbarium specimens of cultivated plants, and with the card catalogs,
to show what plants have been lost, and to determine whether or not they can be or should
be replaced.

The program says: Thus demonstrating the appropriate cultural practices of each.
A comprehensive collection alone does not necessarily, and in the case of the present arboretum does not, demonstrate appropriate cultural practices. To demonstrate these it would be
necessary to have certain examples to show right and wrong planting, right and wrong spraying, right and wrong feeding, etc., and each collection would have to have a bulletin board giving planting dates and treatment given and proposed to give. Coupled with this there
should be field classes or guided tours during which various important practices should be
discussed and demonstrated.

B. The program says: By teaching botany and horticulture. To be really effective to
undergraduates and graduates and to the general public, school children and teachers young
and old, it would require a staff of specially trained full time teachers. The casual
courses now given to the public are not enough, and teaching one or two or half a dozen
graduates a year is certainly not enough for such an institution.

C. The program says: By sharing the knowledge of trees, plants and plant materials
with fellow scientists and horticulturists". The meaning of this is not clear. Does it
mean sharing the knowledge of plant material (if so, what is the distinction between sharing
the knowledge of plants and of plant materials ?) or does it mean also the sharing
of the actual plants ? (or plant materials, whatever they are). What is the distinction
between fellow scientists and horticulturists; does it signify there are no scientific horticulturists on the staff, or does it imply that no horticulturists are scientists, worthy
to be considered fellows by the theoretical botanists ?

How the knowledge of trees, etc. will be shared is not made clear. It can be shared
by exhibiting comprehensive collections as already mentioned in I A or by teaching as in
I B, or by publications as in V A and V B below. If plants are to be shared, that is covered
under II A and II B below, and in general under II and IV below. Various sections of the
program seem to repeat the same plan of activity under different words as if referring to
additional activities.