THE KOMAROV 7 BOTANICAL INSTITUTE 290 YEARS OF RUSSIAN RESEARCH Stanwyn G. Shetler $5.95 THE KOMAROV BOTANICAL INSTITUTE 250 Years of Russian Research by Stanwyn G. Shetler In the early 1700s Peter the Great estab- lished two botanical institutions in St. Petersburg, the city he dared to create a mere seven degrees south of the Arctic Circle. These were the predecessors of the present-day Komarov Botanical Institute, formed in 1931 by the merger of two previous institutions. This book tells the story of the Institute and its predecessors —a glimpse at two-and-a-half centuries of botanical research in Russia. The author describes the physical set- ting and intellectual climate of the Insti- tute along with its vast resources: a staff of 700, two dozen major laboratories, a large greenhouse and outdoor garden com- plex, an arboretum-park, several experi- mental farms, a 450,000-volume library, and combined herbaria of nearly 6 mil- lion specimens, dating back to 1709. Among the many achievements of the Komarov, the author stresses the comple- tion of the monumental 30-volume Flora of the USSR. Prepared over a 33-year period, the Flora covers 17,500 species of plants native to the Soviet Union. The author views this work as “the crowning achievement of Russian taxonomy if not of all Russian botany.” The book closes with an outline of the Institute’s ambitious plans for the future —including a vast effort in tropical re- search. Continued on back flap. THE KOMAROV BOTANICAL INSTITUTE 250 YEARS OF RUSSIAN RESEARCH Se oe From Baranov and Bobrov (8. Baajumup 1. Komapos Vladimir L. Komarov (1869-1945). THE KOMAROV BOTANICAL INSTITUTE 250 YEARS OF RUSSIAN RESEARCH STANWYN G. SHETLER Associate Curator of Phanerogams Smithsonian Institution \ 3 wy, va) Ljefpe yf Or ale Iuctthous V Lélpeas FS SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 1967 Smithsonian Publication 4687 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-27012 © 1967 by the Smithsonian Institution To the men and women who over the past 250 years have fashioned a rich tradition of botanical scholarship in the city of Leter the Great at at Preface he roots of science are cosmopolitan, springing from all corners of civilization, and scientific discoveries are re- corded in many tongues. Yet too often the scientist is a prison- er of his native tongue, and of necessity his scholarly world is circumscribed by the limits of knowledge set forth in his own language. It is especially easy for the scientist caught up by the momentary pressures of his research to lose sight of the depth and breadth of scholarly traditions beyond the language perimeter of his own tradition. This leads to a provincial view of historical development that has unfortunate consequences both for the progress and for the brotherhood of science. Among the great branches of natural science, taxonomy, more than any other branch, 1s rooted in historical process, and the modern taxonomic scholar cannot conduct his research outside the historical context or apart from the historical objects of his science—the literature and the specimens. The special prominence of historical scholarship in taxonomy gives a special prominence also to taxonomic libraries and museums (herbaria), where the essential objects of this scholarship are preserved. Perhaps for these reasons taxonomists seem to have an unusual consciousness of language barriers and of the 1m- portance of an accurate historical perspective. In this book I have tried to bridge the formidable barrier of the Russian language and to open thereby a vista of the rich tradition of botanical scholarship that has grown up over the past 250 years in the ancient city of St. Petersburg- Vil Vill Komarov Botanical Institute Leningrad in the several institutions founded by Peter the Great which have culminated in the present-day Komarov Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Strictly speaking, this is a book about the history of one insti- tution, but it is much more than that. Within Imperial Russia the science of botany essentially took origin in St. Petersburg, and the predecessor institutions, no less than the present Insti- tute, were the leading botanical centers of their time. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the landmarks in the history of the Institute are also major, though not by any means the only landmarks in the history of botany in Russia and the Soviet Union. Little has been written in English about the history of Russian botany, and this account should help to fill the gap. The emphasis is on the history of taxonomy and other descrip- tive fields of botany. This slant reflects my own bias and limited competence to evaluate the record, as well as the fact that the most illustrious chapters in the Institute’s history, from an international viewpoint, have been written in these fields. I have not attempted to write an authoritative, critical history of the Institute—a very difficult if not presumptuous task for any American to undertake even though some intriguing in- sights might be generated from a foreign point of view. Rather, I have sketched a popular account, covering the highlights in a logical and historically accurate sequence. As in all historical research, it has been necessary to arbitrate sources frequently, and doubtless I have erred in places. Yet the absolute authen- ticity of every date and event is less important than the overall accuracy of the thread of history woven—the sequence and dynamics of 250 years of evolution and growth. The specific stimulus for this book was provided by my visit to the Komarov Botanical Institute in July 1964 just prior to the 10th International Botanical Congress in Edin- Preface 1X burgh (1). But I had not anticipated a publication prior to or even during this visit, and the impression must not be gained that I have presumed to write a book solely on the basis of information gathered during those few days. Actually, the general stimulus for writing this book has developed grad- ually from more than a half-dozen years of corresponding with botanists at the Institute concerning mutual research interests and from as many years of browsing in Russian botanical literature. The trip heightened my historical appre- ciation and enabled me to obtain some valuable publications on the Institute and its predecessors, as well as to make certain helpful firsthand contacts. It should be emphasized that most of the information presented here has been synthesized from published sources, and that the research and preparation have taken place entirely since my return from Leningrad. There is no dearth of literature on the Institute’s history for those who read Russian, although the various Russian publications are often difficult to obtain.’ It seems that the botanical institutions of St. Petersburg-Leningrad have al- ways been fortunate to have on their staffs one or more schol- ars who were concerned about recording history (see p. 110). Among their most prominent botanical historians have been V. I. Lipsky, whose special work? 1s still the most exhaustive and authoritative account of the first 200 years of the Imperial Botanic Garden, P. A. Baranov, E. G. Bobrov, D. V. Lebedev, 1The most recent information was published in the October 1965 issue of Botanichesky Zhurnal, in the form of a series of 250-year commemorative articles by different members of the staff of the Komarov Institute. This issue provides a wealth of interesting facts and interpretations. 2Pumep, A. A. (pegakrop). 1913-15. Wuueparopcxui Cr.-Ilerep6yprexuii Botannueckun cag 3a 200 zet ero cymectBoBanna. 1713-1913. Cr.-[lerepoyprckuit- Iletporpag. 3 tom. (Fischer, A. A. [ed.]. lmperatorskiy St.-Peterburgskiy Botanicheskiy Sad za 200 let ego suslchestvovaniya. 1713-1913 |‘“The Imperial St. Petersburg Botanic Garden during the 200 years of its existence” ]. St. Petersburg-Petrograd. 3 vols.) Vols. 1, 3 by Lipsky. x Komarov Botanical Institute and S. J. Lipschitz. The latter have all played important roles in writing the history of the Institute in the present century while updating the older accounts. In May 1964, Soviet botanists celebrated the 250th anni- versary (1714-1964) of the Komarov Botanical Institute; therefore, my visit in July came at a propitious moment in the history of this illustrious institution. I tender this book as a belated tribute to the Institute on the occasion of its 250th birthday. No account of the Institute’s history would be complete without some description of the setting. In the first part of the book I have tried to evoke feeling for the historical setting. This is followed by a personalized description of the modern city of Leningrad. 5. Gus: January 1967 3A larger celebration was held in Leningrad from the 15th to the 18th of December 1965, in connection with the 50th anniversary (1915-65) cele- bration of the All-Union Botanical Society (see p. 191). Acknowledgments any persons have had some part in the preparation of this book. To some, I must acknowledge a special debt. While in Leningrad I was fortunate to make the acquaint- ance of Arthur O. Chater, University of Leicester, who was nearing the end of a 3-month research visit to the Komarov Botanical Institute as an exchange scholar under the auspices of the Royal Society of London and the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Conducting studies in connection with his work as a principal collaborator for Flora Europaea, he had an excel- lent opportunity to use the combined herbaria and library and to observe the organization and day-to-day administration of the herbarium-library complex. Happily, we were able to spend a long evening together over a bottle of pleasant Russian wine, chatting about the Institute and the city. Chater spoke highly of the Institute and the opportunities it affords. I will- ingly confess that his help has been enormous. During my visit to the Institute, Prof. Andrey A. Fedorov graciously looked after my welfare despite his busy schedule preparing for departure to the 10th International Botanical Congress. Through his courtesy I was able to meet the Direc- tor of the Institute, his brother Prof. Aleksandr A. Fedorov, and together they gave me an orientation tour of the grounds. Through correspondence since my return, Director Fedorov has kindly responded to my requests by supplying me with in- valuable statistical and other factual information on the Insti- tute and its history, and I am especially grateful to him for Xl XU Komarov Botanical Institute providing a large selection of photographs, many of which are reproduced here. Among the other botanists at the Institute who facilitated my orientation, special mention should be made of Drs. I. T. Vassilezenko and S. J. Lipschitz for their assistance in the Herbarium. My Intourist guide, Valentina Lysenko, knew her city well and brought its history to life for me. Dr. Arthur J. Cronquist, New York Botanical Garden, visited the Botanical Institute for an extended time in August 1965,' and he has shared his experiences freely with me. I am also indebted to him for permission to use certain of his photographs. The manuscript has been reviewed by the following per- sons to whom I tender sincere thanks: Dr. T. Dale Stewart, Paul Oehser, and William Warner, all of the Smithsonian Institution, and Dr. George H. M. Lawrence, Director, Hunt Botanical Library. The book has been edited by Mrs. Forrest Powars and designed by Frank Dobias, and their expert help is deeply appreciated. Mrs. Gesina B. Threlkeld has drawn both maps for which I am especially pleased. Finally, my wife, Elaine, has rendered indispensable assistance at every turn, and whatever merit the book may have is due in no small measure to her dedicated and enthusiastic help. Inevitably, errors and misinterpretations will be found, and for these I assume full responsibility. Any interpretations or speculations not specifically credited to a published source are strictly my own and must not be attributed to those who have so graciously assisted in the preparation of this book. Although I have tried to be objective, it must be remembered that much detail necessarily has been omitted and that my viewpoint 1s, afterall, an American one. Whatever bias I have shown must be attributed, I fear, to the accident of my heritage. 1Cronquist, Arthur. 1966. Russia’s foremost botanical garden. The Garden Journal 16: 48-53. Contents Preface Acknowledgments Part I. The Setting Chapter 1 The Founding of St. Petersburg 2. The Modern City of Leningrad Part II. The History Introduction 3 Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg 4 Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences 5 Botanic Garden of the Academy of Sciences 6 Komarov Botanical Institute Original Staff and Resources Directorship Departmental Growth and Activities Prewar Years (1931-41) War Years (1941-44) Postwar Years (1945-66) Reorganization in 1960 Vil XI 11 23 25) 43 63 67 69 12 83 84 100 102 NY XI 6 Komarov Botanical Institute—continued Present Staff and Resources National Role Flora SSSR Serial Publications International Role Intellectual Milieu Part III. A Summary and Postscript 7° Past, Present, and Future Chronological Table of Significant Events in dhe. History of the Komarov Botanical Institute in St. Petersburg-Leningrad References Index 2a: bat 136 166 170 7d 187 I) 205 23 PART 1 The Setting CHAPTER The Founding of St. Letersburg J n the year 1703, Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia, founded a city on the banks of the Neva River near its mouth at the head of the Gulf of Finland. It was an act of daring and sovereign self-confidence to attempt to create a national and international hub of politics, science, and culture, representing the finest in Russian society, here on the braided delta of the Neva amid the birches and conifers of a vast and barren boreal forest. For this was swbarctic wilderness lying at 60° north latitude, only about 7° south of the Arctic Circle, and within the perennial grip of a harsh and unrelenting climate. With chilly summers and long, dark, frigid winters, battling the elements had to be a major year-round preoccupation. Stull, the Neva Delta had some points to recommend it. For one, there was the proximity of the gulf and the easy access it provided to the open seas, a major consideration in days before trains and planes. The prospect of a good port for Russia on the Baltic Sea, open at least 6 months a year, out- weighed many of the drawbacks of the subarctic location. The river would provide an abundance of fresh water and an inland navigation route. Fish, always a staple in the Russian diet, 3 4 Komarov Botanical Institute were plentiful in the river and gulf. Even the climate posed a welcome relief from the severely continental climate of Mos- cow, ancient capital (1340-1712) and mother city of Tsarist Russia, where temperatures soared and plummeted to greater extremes. On the Neva Delta, the summers and winters were considerably milder (owing to the ameliorating effects of the Baltic Sea) than latitude alone would dictate. To the tsar, therefore, the site along the lower Neva offered the Imperial Court a more favorable climate and a more strategic location for the conduct of national and international affairs than could Moscow. Petersburg or Saint Petersburg, as the tsar’s city was later called, grew rapidly during the 18th and 19th centuries, from a small wilderness outpost into the leading intellectual center of Russia. By 1704 Peter was reputed to have had 40,000 countrymen working on his city, and in 11712)" less thanel@ years later, Petersburg became the capital of Imperial Russia, which it remained until 1918, just after the October Revolu- tion, when the Bolsheviks returned the government to Moscow. For a few years prior to and following the Revolution (1914— 24), St. Petersburg was known as Petrograd, but in 1924, after the death of Lenin, the city was renamed in his honor and has since been known as Leningrad.” Peter I, as Peter the Great was officially titled, died in 1725 and did not live to see how much his city was to flourish or what national and international prominence it was to attain in literary and commercial circles, but already his vision had ignited the imagination of his people and his memory has lingered in their hearts even to the present day. Like Ivan the Terrible, he was by times a cruel and ruthless leader, and he is remembered with certain mixed feelings. At the same time 1This date is sometimes given as 1713. 2St. Petersburg, 1703-1914, Petrograd, 1914-24, Leningrad, 1924-present. The Founding of St. Petersburg 5 he is generally remembered as a ‘“‘good”’ tsar because of his grand vision of Russia and the positive contributions he made; above all, modern Leningraders like to stress his humility, as evidenced by the small summer abode he built for himself which contrasts sharply with some of the sumptuous palaces built by later emperors. Leningrad has various monuments to Peter I, but the city itself is his great legacy to the Russian people and the greatest memorial to him. Of the succession of tsars and tsarinas following him—a number of whom even bore his own imperial title ‘‘Peter’””—some were less humane and, in the end, perhaps none is remembered so well. Yet each left his mark upon the city, whether good or bad, and together they built a great city. Often trying to outdo their predecessors, the tsars left their signatures on the city in the form of various ornate and lavishly appointed palaces, cathe- drals, and state buildings, until St. Petersburg became fairly saturated with imperial edifices. Some of the cultural and scientific institutions founded by the tsars in St. Petersburg have survived in modified form until the present time and have, in their long history, had a profound influence on the world scene. The famed Maryinsky Ballet of St. Petersburg established an unexampled, pace- setting tradition in the art of the classical ballet, and this tradition has been continued in the modern period by its renamed successor, the equally renowned Kirov Ballet of Leningrad. Very early in its history the city became known as a center of science and scholarship. Its high intellectual and cultural level gave St. Petersburg a special status among Rus- sian cities in national and international affairs. Scholars are no respecters of national boundaries, and their presence made St. Petersburg Russia’s “‘window to the west,” as Peter the Great had vowed to make tt. European, first German and later French, cultural and Oc rpobre | Hq Ocmpots alla mekopekou 4 a. ~ Gh a 0 The Founding of St. Petersburg 7 Map oF St. PETERSBURG ABouT 1725 SHOWING AREA THAT Topay LIES IN THE HEART OF LENINGRAD Drawn by Gesina B. Threlkeld from early midshipman’s map, reproduced in Baranov et al. (8). Place names on map (quotation marks indicate archaic spellings) : «Octposb KamMeHHoii» — Ostrov Kamennoy — Stony Island. «Octposn AlTeKopcKoi» — Ostrov Aptekorskoy — Pharmaceutical Island. «Cab Ea BeanuectBa» — Sad Yeya Velichestva — Garden of Her Majesty [Catherine I, 1684-1727; Tsarina, 1725-27]. «Octpops IlerepoypreKoiiy — Ostrov Peterburgskoy — Petersburg Island. «Octposs Bacnapesckuii>—Ostrov Vasil evskiy—Vassilevsky Island. 8 Komarov Botanical Institute scientific influence was deliberately introduced and cultivated by the tsars who coveted the refinement of western Europe and looked upon things Russian with a certain disdain. They brought in many foreign scholars to establish the sciences and arts in Russia. This gave the Imperial Court an international flavor and encouraged a much more cosmopolitan and world- ly atmosphere in the Imperial City than could be found in any other Russian city, including the highly provincial Moscow. In many respects, Leningrad today is still the most cultured and scholarly city of Russia and is still her window to the west, although the Soviet Government has striven hard with con- siderable success to develop other centers of cultural and scientific excellence within the Soviet Union. Particularly, it has tried to restore Moscow to its ancient prominence as mother city and capital of Russian civilization. Among the acts of Peter the Great that have had lasting significance in the realm of science was the founding of a Phar- maceutical Garden in St. Petersburg about the time it became the capital of Russia. This Garden gradually developed into a major center of botanical research, gaining renown not only throughout Russia but throughout the whole world during the more than two centuries of its independent existence. The founding of this Garden in 1714, which after 1823 became known as the Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg, sig- naled in effect the beginning of scientific botany in Russia. Though its fortunes waxed and waned, especially during the early years, it remained the preeminent botanical institution of Russia throughout most of its history. Its present-day succes- sor is the Komarov Botanical Institute in Leningrad, now the principal botanical institution of the Soviet Union. The Insti- tute was formed in 1931 by the merger of the Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, also tracing its origin to about 1714 in St. Peters- The Founding of St. Petersburg 9 burg. Thus, there has been an unbroken tradition of distin- guished botanical scholarship in St. Petersburg-Leningrad since the founding of Peter’s Pharmaceutical Garden more than 250 years ago, in the days of the great botanist Tourne- fort and about 40 years prior to the first appearance of Lin- naeus’ Species Plantarum in 1753. During these 250 years, some of the world’s greatest botanists—both foreign and Rus- sian—have worked at the Imperial Botanic Garden, Botanical Museum, or, in modern times, the Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Much of the earlier bo- tanical exploration of the arctic and subarctic regions of Eurasia and Alaska was carried out by botanists working out of St. Petersburg, and today the Botanical Institute houses some of the richest early collections for these regions that are known to exist. In modern times, the Botanical Institute has broadened its scope to include virtually all branches of botanical research, but during the 18th and 19th centuries the Imperial Garden was preoccupied mainly with the description and classification of plants, namely taxonomy. This was not unusual inasmuch as the science of botany began with taxonomy, and prior to the 20th century taxonomy was the chief pursuit of botanists everywhere. Even to the present time, however, botanical scholarship in Leningrad has distinguished itself primarily in the area of taxonomy, and today the Botanical Institute can boast perhaps the second largest herbarium in the world. The average Leningrader does not seem to be aware of his city’s great botanical heritage; my Intourist guide, who in general was very well informed about the city, had never heard of the Komarov Botanical Institute. But people are people, and the last thing they will do is learn something about their own hometown, particularly when it concerns an intellectual tradition as esoteric and “impractical” as botany. CHAPTER 2 The Modern City of Leningrad yp oday Leningrad 1s a modern industrial city lying astride the branched mouth of the Neva River and sprawling across the boggy lowlands of the surrounding delta region. The city’s present population, including suburbs, is nearing 4 million. Thus, in population it ranks second to Moscow among Soviet cities, but in science, culture, and general world- liness some would rank it first. The boreal wilderness of Peter the Great’s tme has been pushed far beyond the perimeter of his city, and in its place one sees vast acres of cultivated fields where cabbages and other vegetables are grown. Except for small relict tracts preserved in parks, the original forest has virtually disappeared from the landscape in the environs of Leningrad. As our Aeroflot flight from Helsinki approached Leningrad on a bright July morning, I could easily have mistaken the domestic countryside beneath for prairie wheatland in Mon- tana or Alberta, for all the difference that one could discern from a plane window. There were the characteristic flat, open fields stretching away to the horizon in every direction and spilling beyond, punctuated only by scattered copses of trees 11 12 Komarov Botanical Institute around villages and rural dwellings. One had to look at the vegetation from the ground and feel the cool oblique rays of the polar sun on one’s back to appreciate the subarctic latitude and the limitations it imposes upon industry and agriculture. Standing in Leningrad, one 1s standing, in effect, in Anchor- age or Oslo, and | had to keep reminding myself of this when I became prone to criticize the sometimes mangy turfs and monotonous ornamental plantings in the city parks. Actually, the decorative plantings of Leningrad are quite remarkable. They are well groomed and jealously guarded by the ubiquitous and devoted babushki (“‘grandmothers” )— middle-aged and elderly Russian women who practically have the status of a national institution. These women are called “grandmother” as a term of affection and esteem and without regard for any actual blood relationships. They per- form a variety of jobs that an American, for example, expects to see a man doing. Among them 1s policing the city’s muse- ums and parks. Dressed in regular work garb and distin- guished from the public only by an armband, they roam about apprehending trespassers. One has to admire their proud spirit and the results they achieve. Leningraders (Leningradtsy) are sentimental about their river. To them the storied Neva—strategic trade route and gateway to the sea, lifeline and playground of the people, in- spirational haunt of poet and lover, stage of history, and axis of ancient St. Petersburg—ais the soul of their great city. Just like the tsars, who built their important residences and state build- ings along its waterfronts, the modern residents of the city can’t resist the Neva’s magnetic powers, and much city life is oriented about it. Many festive events take place on or along the river especially in the vicinity of the former Winter Palace of the tsars. Leningrad State University stands along its banks, and the city’s students hold a special esteem for the river. The Modern City of Leningrad 13 In the heart of the city, not far from its mouth, the Neva River forks several times, and the major branches divide the delta into a number of islands. A large part of downtown Leningrad is built on these islands, which form natural sectors of the city interconnected by a series of about 120 bridges, some of them very historic. At the first fork around the bend from the famous Smolny, where Lenin set up headquarters in 1917 after the October Revolution, the Nevka River breaks off to the north; subsequently, it forks into the Big Nevka and Little Nevka. The continuing Neva forks again in front of the Winter Palace into the Big Neva and Little Neva. The historic Aptekarsky Ostrov (“Pharmaceutical Island’), on which Peter founded his Pharmaceutical Garden, is surrounded by various branches of the Nevka and, on the south, by a canal. It was from the Neva, near where the Nevka branches off, that the cruiser Awrora fired its guns on the Winter Palace in the token shelling that touched off the Revolution. The Aurora, restored as a museum and symbol of victory, now lies perma- nently anchored along the banks of the river near where it lay anchored on that fateful day. Leningrad is a rapidly growing city and one sees high-rise apartment buildings going up all around. Great “super blocks,’ as they call them, are being constructed in modular fashion, each comprising a virtual city within a city when it is finished, being self-sufficient with its own apartments, schools, shops, and services. From my hotel lobby I could see one of these “blocks” going up over what was literally a bog before, and its apartment buildings had very attractive win- dows and balconies. The architecture of the city is changing from the drab, massive, uninspired Stalinesque style of the postwar period to the starkly modern styles that have become commonplace in many Western cities. The concrete 1s less formidable, and the use of color and glass is more liberal and Komarov Botanical Institute 14 t =e e----g 1n5 dsov’d AWSHAOMSOW @) Threlkeld m by Gesina B. Drau Map oF Downtown LENINGRAD (JleHunrpag) Topay SHowinc IMPORTANT LANDMARKS AND Historic PLACES Ww UL Wz The Modern City of Leningrad 1s Key to Map of Downtown Leningrad . Pharmaceutical Island (Aptekarsky Ostrov — Aurekapcruit OctpoB), where the Komarov Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Borannuecknit Uncru- tyt um. B. JI. Romapopa AH CCCP) is located (east end). . Peter and Paul Fortress (Petropavlovskaya Krepost’— Iletpo- WaBIOBCKasd Hpenocts ). Anchorage of cruiser Aurora. . Leningrad State University. Buildings from north to south on point of land: Karpinsky Geological Museum (Geologicheskiy Muzey im. Karpinskogo — Veonornyeckuit Myseit um. KapuMucKoro ). Central Naval Museum (Tsentral?niy Voenno-Morskoy Muzey — Ileutpaipunit Boewxno-Mopcxoit Mysei). Leningrad Zoological Museum (Leningradskiy Zoologicheskiy Muzey — lennurpaycknii Soo10rmueckuit Myseit). Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Akademia Nauk SSSR — Akajyemus’ Hayk CCCP). Old Admiralty (Admiralteystvo — Aimupa.atetcrso ); Decem- brist Square (Dekabristaya Ploshchad’ — Jlexadpucras I10- majtb ) is located at west end. Winter Palace (Zimniy Dvorets — 3umunit J|Boper), which today houses the State Hermitage (Gosudarstvennyy! Ermi- tazh — VocyfapeTBeHHblii IpMutasxk), the world-famous art museum. On the south side is the Palace Square (Dvortso- vaya Ploshchad’ — Jlsopronasa Uaomayp ). St. Isaac’s Cathedral (Isaakievskiy Sobor — Ucaaknescruii Co- Oop). Across the street is the Hotel Astoria (Actopus). Summer Palace and Garden of Peter the Great (Letniy Dvo- rets 1 Letniy Sad Petra I—.Jerunit J[Bopen u Jetani Cay Ilerpa I). Smolny (CMO1bHbIIi ). Moscow Station (Moskovskiy Vokzal — Mockoscruit Borsa. ). Highway leading south past Hotel Russia (Gostinitsa Rossiya —Tocrununa Pocena) to Leningrad International Airport, Pushkin (Ilymun), and Pavlovsk (Iapaoscr). 16 Komarov Botanical Institute flagrantly decorative. My hotel itself, Gostinitsa Rossiya (“Hotel Russia’), had only been built within the past 10 years, but it did not bear the touch of the newer architecture. Although my guide was quite proud of this hotel, calling it Leningrad’s “‘modern”’ hotel, the modernity 1s a little obscure. The 19th-century Astoria in downtown Leningrad, though outdated, still has a touch of elegance and graciousness, and 1s the instant favorite of foreign visitors. Transportation has come a long way since the time of Peter I, when the trip from Moscow to St. Petersburg took many days overland through virgin taiga, and connections to the outside world were provided only by sea. Today Moscow is an easy and comfortable overnight trip by train from Lenin- grad and a few hours away by plane. Leningrad has a large and expanding airport, where connections to all parts of the world can be made, usually via Moscow or Helsinki, although its air traffic is surprisingly light for a city of such size and prominence. A network of highways connects Leningrad with outlying towns and distant cities. The city is also connected by water to the White Sea on the north and the Volga River on the south by means of a series of rivers, lakes, and artificial canals. Public transportation in the city is very good, as in European cities generally, and includes buses, trolleys, and an 18-mile subway completed quite recently. A little pompous and motley architecturally, the subway 1s nonetheless a real showpiece and a major engineering achievement for an almost arctic city, sitting on a circumpolar line with northern Kamt- chatka and southernmost Greenland. The streets of Leningrad are relatively busy with cars and especially trucks, which greatly outnumber the cars. Apparently most of the vehicles are publicly owned, but taxis for hire are all too scarce. Leningrad is a spacious city of broad avenues (prospects), wide open squares, panoramic waterfronts, and quiet ram- The Modern City of Leningrad NZ bling parks and monument grounds. It is very beautiful but outwardly seems subdued and almost drab to the foreigner who 1s accustomed to great glass fronts, thickets of gaudy signs, and shops with wares overflowing onto the sidewalks. Incon- spicuous signs inform but seldom advertise; posters either announce some cultural attraction or extol the virtues of communist society. Few wares are attractively displayed to- ward the street for the window shopper. At night the city 1s especially disappointing to the visitor from abroad because the streets appear to him to be dimly lit and lack the neon gaiety of comparable foreign cities. Yet the real beauty of Leningrad lies behind the sometimes monotonous facade of her buildings. It is the beauty of her historic places and fabulous historical treasures, her scientific and cultural institutions, and her warmly hospitable people, whose indomitable spirit has sus- tained a great city for more than two centuries. Leningrad is above all a city of history. Few Russian cities have more to tell and few can evoke a more vivid sense of the past. St. Petersburg belonged to the tsars, and in a way so does the modern city; on every hand one can see the palaces, cathedrals, state buildings, and monuments they built so that Leningrad almost seems like a colossal temple to the tsars. The Russian people have gone to great expense and effort to preserve and restore the imperial dwellings of St. Petersburg as public museums. During World War II Hitler’s army leveled all the summer palaces of the tsars outside the city, and the Russians are still busy with the staggering task of authentic restoration. Today, the visitor to Leningrad can tour the preserved and restored tsarist buildings, see firsthand the elegant interiors and lavish furnishings, and gain some notion of the opulent lives led there. In the Hermitage, the former Winter Palace and most famous tsarist museum of Leningrad, and in St. Isaac’s 18 Komarov Botanical Institute Cathedral—to cite two outstanding examples—one finds one- self speechless at the sight of the ornate gold overlays, intricately inlaid floors, paneled walls, frescoed ceilings, enormous col- umns of precious stones, and numerous priceless paintings and sculptures. Not until after the Revolution did the Rus- sian peasants of St. Petersburg ever glimpse the treasures of the Winter Palace, and it was not until then, too, that they first learned that the Palace contained a hanging garden within its compound for the relaxation and pleasure of the Imperial Court. Going from one historical museum or monument to another, one becomes immersed vicariously 1n the almost time- less history of the Russian people. At first thought the devotion of the Soviet Government to preserving or even restoring tsarist history seems ironic, but of course this zeal has not always been so pronounced. The present generation have largely been born during the Soviet period, and they have a genuine appreciation and fascination for their rich heritage. Fortunately for the benefit not only of the Russian people but for people everywhere, the Govern- ment has seen fit to preserve this heritage. Today’s citizens of Leningrad have a great pride in their historical museums, and one senses that they feel indebted to the tsars for this rich legacy. The average resident of the city seems to take an objective and quite detached view of his tsarist surroundings. As though it were ‘thumbing its nose’’ at the tsars, the State has con- verted beautiful cathedrals into antireligious, materialistic museums, and has developed a public beach along the Neva River in front of the infamous ‘“‘Peter and Paul Fortress,” the dreaded torture prison of St. Petersburg during tsarist times, where such historic Russians as Dostoevsky were im- prisoned for political crimes. Intourist, the Soviet travel bu- reau, exploits Leningrad’s tsarist legacy to the full in the ountains at Petrodvorets, summer palace of tsars along Gulf of Finland west of Leningrad | | | LIED yp, | Apartment construction on south side of Leningrad behind Hotel Russia, 1964. Be- _ low, Gateway to Palace Square opposite the Winter Palace in heart of Leningrad. hotographs by S. G. Shetler GALE SOE LIS IIE REEDS s SOIL * Looking across the Neva River at the spire and walls of Peter-and-Paul Fortress behind public beach. Looking across the Big Neva at the museum buildings and Leningrad headquarters of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Pushkin Square on the point that divides the Neva. In the distance, the spire of Peter-and-Paul Fortress. Photographs by S. G. Shetler Leningrad State University on the banks of the Big Neva. PS St. Isaac’s Cathedral in center of Leningrad. Below, Selling ice cream near water- front to crowds celebrating Soviet Fleet Day. Photographs by S. G. Shetler Left, Smolny, Lenin’s revo- lutionary headquarters in 1917. Below, Downtown Leningrad. On the right: Hotel Astoria; in the back- ground: spire of the Admi- ralty. Photographs by S. G. Shetler The Modern City of Leningrad 19 foreign tourist trade, and their guides are well informed about Russian history and culture. Thousands of Russian people also pour through the museums and take serious interest in them. To be sure, the museums have an instructional function beyond the mere telling of history—presumably, the people are chastened by what they see. Indeed, it is impossible to come out of these museums without being a little chastened and more than a little impressed with the enormous gulf that separated the opulent royalty from the masses of destitute Russian peasants. Yet one also emerges with that pleasant thrill of having been ‘‘tsar for a day.” To be able to retreat for a few hours or days into the vicarious world of the tsars 1s obviously a real pleasure that can be enjoyed by all the people. Leningrad has known great tragedy; across its face are the scars of centuries of tyranny and war, poverty and starvation. Scattered throughout the city are the parks, squares, and monuments that commemorate the grim events of World War II when the 900-day Nazi blockade starved to death more than a half-million residents of Leningrad and all but strangled the city. So confident of victory was Hitler that he ordered menus and programs printed for the victory celebra- tion, which was to have been held in downtown Hotel Astoria. He planned to attend in person. Captured by the Russians when they finally won the desperate struggle and broke the siege, these artifacts of Hitler’s inhuman if meticulous calcula- tions are now displayed in the Astoria. Contemplating the dogged endurance of the Russian resistance in Leningrad during those 3 desperate years of the blockade, and considering the extensive rebuilding and modest prosperity of the city today, one 1s deeply impressed with the image of a heroic and resilient people. Present-day Leningrad is a city of many contrasts and par- adoxes. Some are common to large cities the world over, 20 Komarov Botanical Institute while others are unique to the Soviet Union or simply to Leningrad. The unique features are due in part to the rather different values of Soviet society but mainly to the character of the Soviet economy. The city has a modern subway system, and hydroplanes speed up and down the Neva River between a downtown wharf and the country summer palace on the Gulf of Finland known as Petrodvorets (‘‘Peter’s Palace’), but citizens must queue and tussle, literally, for a cab ride. Teenagers roam the parks with transistor radios, but one can watch the grass being cut in front of Leningrad’s newest hotel with a scythe. Culturally, the city offers only the finest in bal- let, opera, music, and theater, but it is hard to find an inti- mate ‘‘pub” where one can converse quietly over a sandwich and a beer. Restaurant service can be incredibly slow; even my guide could not understand why it took me 2 hours to be served a bowl of borscht moscovsky. All the paradoxes notwithstanding, one finds Leningrad to be a beautiful and charming city and its citizens a warmly hospitable people. PART 2 The History Introduction n its present structure the Komarov Botanical Institute dates from 1931 when the Principal Botanic? Garden of the USSR and the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, both in Leningrad, were merged into a single institution within the framework of the Soviet Acad- emy of Sciences. The Botanical Museum had always been a unit of the Academy, while the Botanic Garden had been elevated only the previous year (1930) from Principal Botan- ic Garden of the Russian Republic (RSFSR*) to the status of a member institution of the Academy. In 1940, the Botan- ical Institute was named in honor of Academician V. L. Ko- marov, instigator and editor-in-chief of the monumental Flora SSSR (‘Flora of the USSR’’), who was at the tme president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. He died in 1945, and in 1946 annual ‘“‘Komarov Readings” in his mem- ory were inaugurated at the Botanical Institute by the Presid- ium of the Academy of Sciences. The Imperial Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences were founded independently in ®The Russian adjective Ootanuyeckuit (botanicheskiy, hereafter simplified to botanichesky) can be translated either “botanic” or “botanical.” I have followed the translation practices of the Russians themselves and translated it “botanic” in connection with the Garden and “botanical” in connection with the Museum and Institute. *Where necessary for clarity, transliterated words and abbreviations are rendered in italics in this book, as with foreign words generally, but trans- lated words and abbreviations are placed inside quotation marks. Neither italics nor quotation marks are used for words that have become common in English usage, e.g., ruble. 23 24 Komarov Botanical Institute the early 19th century, but their forerunners took origin about 1714, as already indicated. Thus, the rea/ origin of the present-day Botanical Institute must be traced to this earlier date—over 250 years ago. The time was finally ripe in 1931 to unite these two institutions which for about 100 years had had quite similar objectives and many overlapping functions. The union was effected to eliminate the previous duplication and consequent waste of effort and resources. CHAPTER 3 Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg [1714] 1823 - 193] eter I (1672-1725), originally established the Botanic Garden as the so-called Aptekarsky Ogorod, meaning “Pharmaceutical Garden.” The precise year of founding, whether 1713 or 1714, has been disputed, but the actual decree was dated February 11, 1714 (2,3). The Garden was founded on a large island in the Neva Delta which became known as Aptekarsky Ostrov (“‘Pharmaceutical Island’’). The present- day Botanical Institute is still located on this site, which in 1714 was in the remote outskirts of St.Petersburg but today is near the center of Leningrad. The Garden was organized as a subordinate unit of the State Apothecary, under the Medi- cal Office, chiefly for the purpose of supplying medicinal plants and products to Peter’s army. All early records have been burned, and little more of those first days is known than that the Garden was small and had both indoor and outdoor plantings. During the 18th century the Garden passed from one jurisdiction to another and changed names accordingly. In Dy) 26 Komarov Botanical Institute 1725, when Peter I died and his wife, Catherine I, became empress, it was renamed the “‘Garden of Her Imperial May- esty Catherine I” and placed under some degree of supervision of the Imperial Court. The Russian word Sad was substituted for the word Ogorod’ in the official name, and this was a change of some significance, indicating that the Garden had taken on a more general character and now included more than purely medicinal plants. The word Sad was not consis- tently used in the Garden’s name thereafter, however. Again in 1735 the name was changed, this time to Meditzinsky Sad (M. Ogorod in some accounts [3]), but despite the name “Medicinal” the Garden was not entirely devoted to medicinal plants. About this time the first publication of the Garden was issued. It was a privately published catalog (see p. 36) of the plants under cultivation at the Garden, indoors and outdoors, compiled by Director J. G. Siegesbeck (1686-1755), in which 1275 species were enumerated—Primitiae Florae Petropolit- anae (1736). Many of these plants had been brought from Siberia, Mongolia, China, and other distant countries. Russian scientists were scarce, and Peter I invited foreign (mainly German) scientists to develop the medical and phar- maceutical sciences at the Aptekarsky Ogorod. Not until the late 18th century did Russian botanists begin to replace the foreigners. For many years the foreigners secured a prevalent position in the ‘Aptekarsky Ogorod,’ as they did in fact in all the other scientific institutions, and obstructed the access of Russian specialists to these institutions. This characteristic feature of the history of the ‘Apte- karsky Ogorod’ and of the history of the Botanic Garden at its early stages has been obscured by some of its historians, even by V.I. Lipsky. (2, p. 5) 5The word oropog (ogorod) means literally “vegetable” or “truck” garden, referring to a special kind of useful plant garden, while cag (sad) is the general word for “garden” and is much more applicable in the context of botanic gardens. This is particularly true from the standpoint of modern Russian. Imperial Botanic Garden Di, Siegesbeck*® directed the Garden for 7 years (1735-42) and then left to become an academician in the Academy of Sciences and to occupy the chair of botany. From 1742 untl 1765, when the Swedish botanist Johann Falk (1730-74), a student of Linnaeus, became director, the Garden was without the leadership of a scientist, and by 1765 it hardly resembled the Garden that Siegesbeck had left. In particular, few of the Siberian plant collections had survived. Despite high scienti- fic qualifications, Falk did not manage the Garden well. In 1768 he departed on a long expedition, which he did not survive, dying in 1774. After Falk’s departure, the Garden was placed for the first time under the directorship of a Russian botanist. He was Martin Terechowsky (1740-96), one of the first botanists and microbiologists in Russia. During his directorship he went abroad for several years (1772-75) to prepare a dissertation at Strasbourg. In 1793 he compiled the second catalog of the species under cultivation in the Garden (Catalogus Plantarum Horti Imperialis Medici Botanici Petropolitani in Insula Apothecaria; 1406 spp.). It was published in 1796, the year he died. The catalogs of Siegesbeck and Terechowsky were the only two works concerning the Garden published during the first 100 years of its existence. Terechowsky was succeeded after his death by Prof. G. F. Sobolewsky (1741-1807), and in 1798 during the latter’s directorship the “‘Medicinal Garden’? became the ‘‘Medico- Botanic Garden’”’ of the “Academy of Medicine and Surgery” *It was during his tenure as director, in 1737, that Siegesbeck made his famous, scathing attack on Linnaeus’ Sexual System of Classification. “He is remembered today only through the unpleasant small-flowered weed which Linnaeus named Sigesbeckia [Compositae]” (Stearn, William Thomas. 1957. An introduction to the Species Plantarum and cognate botanical works of Carl Linnaeus, p. 25. J Carl Linnaeus Species Plantarum, a facsimile of the first edition, 1753, vol. 1. London, Adlard and Son, xiv, 176 and 560 pp.). 28 Komarov Botanical Institute (now the “Kirov Academy of Military Medicine’’), where students of the Academy studied botany. Sobolewsky was sick during much of his tenure and, consequently, Prof. T. A. Smelowsky (1769-1815) of the Academy played a large role in the direction of the Garden. Smelowsky’s contributions included the translating of Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica in- to the Russian language. After Sobolewsky, the Garden was directed for a time(1806-09) by F. H. Stephan (1757-1814) and finally (1809-1 3)'by Prof. Jason V. Petrov; despite their considerable and experienced efforts, however, it continued to deteriorate. In 1823, the Medico-Botanic Garden was reorganized and designated the “Imperial Botanic Garden of Saint Petersburg” (see footnote on p. 40). The eminent botanist F. E. L. Fischer (1782-1854)’ now became its director. This brought to an end the Garden’s subordination to the Academy of Medicine and Surgery. The initial stimulus for reorganization came from a report submitted to the Tsarist Government in 1823 by the Minister of Home Affairs, V. P. Kotschubey, pointing out the deplorable condition of the Garden—ramshackle green- houses, etc.—and emphasizing the urgency of putting it on a regularly financed basis so that it could become a research institution worthy of a great country like Russia. This report was favorably received and was reinforced by a second event that occurred about the same time. A year earlier (1822) Count Razumovsky died. His death brought the closing and gradual dissolution of his renowned private botanic garden and library, started in 1795 at Gorenky near Moscow. Fischer had been the Count’s chief botanist. In a move to salvage what by now was recognized as a great national treasure, the Government eventually (by 1825), de- spite great transportation difficulties, transferred the rarest 7Known in the Russian language as F.B. Fischer. Imperial Botanic Garden 29 plants in the Gorenky botanic garden and the Count’s extremely valuable botanical library to St. Petersburg. This helped to introduce a whole new era into the life of the St. Petersburg Garden. The Gorenky books provided the nucleus for developing a library at the newly created Imperial Botanic Garden, and the year 1824 usually is given as the founding year of the library of today’s Komarov Botanical Institute. Under the aegis of Fischer and the distinguished directors who followed him, the Imperial Botanic Garden took on a scientific character. Organized development of the herbarrum began about 1823, and this date generally is considered the founding date of the present herbarium in Leningrad, although technically it was founded in 1714.§ The Garden was not wholly freed from pharmaceutical responsibilities, however, and for a long ume it continued to supply the State Apothecary. Official jurisdiction changed several times and with it the fortunes of the Garden. First, the Medical Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs controlled it (1823-30), then the Ministry of the Court (1830-63), and finally the Minis- try of State Properties, which took over only after special representations by Director E. A. Regel (1815-92), who devoted 40 years of his life to the Garden, serving two non- consecutive terms as director. The Ministry of the Court had improved the material position of the Garden but had so inter- fered with its scientific development that at one point Regel personally organized a separate “‘Pomological Garden” on the side for plants which interested him scientifically. The 19th century was a period of great expansion and growth at the Garden, making it the major botanical institution 8Vassilczenko (4) gives the date 1713 and credits Peter the Great with personally having collected the first herbarium, which for a long time was kept in Moscow until it perished in the conflagration of 1812. He notes that the oldest specimens in the Leningrad herbarium today date back to 1709. They were collected in the vicinity of Moscow by a physician of Peter I. 30 Komarov Botanical Institute of Russia as well as a major international botanical center. Many expeditionary efforts were supported by the Garden, especially inside Russia but also throughout the world. Already by the 1870s, the herbarium had accumulated nearly 200,000 specimens, and the library had approximately 15,000 vol- umes. More than 21,000 species and varieties were under cultivation. Among the many extremely important collections that were added to the herbarium during the 1800s and early 1900s, those of K. F. Ledebour (1785-1851) (vouchers for his classic Flora Rossica), C. A. Meyer, Trautvetter, F. Fischer, Turczaninov, Schrenck, Maximowicz, Komarov, and B. A. and O. A. Fedtschenko are some of the most notable. At the beginning of the 20th century, the ‘Transmigration Bu- reau”’ sent expeditions into all parts of Asiatic Russia to study soils and vegetation, and during one 5-year period (1908-12) more than 100 collections added over 150,000 specimens to the herbarium. The work of this Bureau was responsible for a great new surge in floristic research. (2,5) In the late 18th century and about the first half of the 19th century, the Russians were actively involved in discovery voyages to the Bering Sea and southern Alaskan regions. During this time various Russian settlements were established in Alaska from the Aleutian Islands to the southeastern Pan- handle, where an especially well-known, semipermanent Russian-American colony was established at Sitka. Accom- panying the navigators and explorers on many of the voyages were Russian naturalists or foreign naturalists under Russian employ, who sent back plant specimens to St. Petersburg, primarily to the Imperial Botanic Garden but also to the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences. This was quite logical of course because at that time Alaska was Rus- sian territory, and together the two institutions in St. Peters- burg housed what was, in effect, the national herbarium of Imperial Botanic Garden 31 Russia, where one would expect collections from Russian territory to be housed. Thus the history of botanical explora- tion in Alaska begins with the Russians, and a large majority of the early Alaskan collections and types are still preserved in Leningrad today. For this reason, the plant collections of those discovery voyages are particularly significant to North Ameri- can botany. Ledebour’s Flora Rossica, published in 1842-53, included not only all of Siberia and Russia but also Alaska, as it was then known. Rothrock’s later ‘“‘Sketch of the Flora of Alaska” (1868) was merely a compilation from Ledebour’s work (6). The first collections ever made in Alaska have been lost, but the historical records of them are preserved in Leningrad (6). These collections were made by the German botanist G. W. Steller (1709-46) who, as naturalist, accompanied the Danish Captain Vitus Bering on board the vessel St. Peter in 1741, when Alaska was discovered. It was the ‘“‘“Second Kamt- chatka Expedition,” and the other ship, St. Paul, was under the command of the Russian Captain Chirikoff. Its naturalist was named Croyere. The collections of both Steller and Croy- ere were destined for St. Petersburg eventually, but various events caused their complete loss enroute. The next Russian involvement did not come until more than a half-century later, although only a handful of collectors under other flags reached Alaska in the meantime. In 1805 and 1806, Academician G. H. Langsdorff (1774-1 852). Russian Consul-General in Rio de Janeiro, accompanied Captain Krusenstern on his cir- cumnavigation of the globe, which brought them eventually to all parts along the southern Alaskan coast from the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak to Sitka in the Southeast. Langsdorff sent his collections back to the Botanic Garden in St. Peters- °G. I. Langsdorff in the Russian language. 32 Komarov Botanical Institute burg. The next to figure in Alaskan exploration were Chamisso and Eschscholtz who accompanied Captain Kotzebue around the world in 1816-17 and made extensive collections on Un- alaska, the Pribilof Islands, and at other Alaskan localities in the Bering region. Their collections were sent to Berlin and St. Petersburg, where they came to reside in the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences. Russia’s interests in Alaska were sold to the United States in 1867, but the Russian phase of scientific exploration had essentially ended by mid-century. Probably the last major collection to go to St. Petersburg was that of Heinrich Tiling, a physician in the Russian-American colony at Sitka. His collections were made on Unalaska in 1851 and around Sitka from 1866 to 1868. Prior to 1850, however, a whole series of Alaskan collectors besides those already mentioned sent their specimens to St. Petersburg, either to the Garden or the Mu- seum. By date of exploration, they were: Kyber (1 825), Kus- mischeff (ca. 1825), Chlebnikoff (1827), Kastalsky (1827), Mertens (1827), Postels (1827), Peters (1829), Blaschke (1830-42), Wrangell (1834), and Wossnesensky (1840-49). During this entire period (1825-49), only two collections are recorded from Alaska—Wormskjold, Lay and Collier—which did not ultimately get deposited in St. Petersburg. Of those collections that did reach Petersburg, Mertens’ collection (1827) from Sitka is especially noteworthy, because it be- came the basis for one of the earliest publications on Alaskan plants—Bongard’s Observations sur la Végétation de I'Ile de Sitcha (Mém. Acad. Sc. St.-Pétersb. VI, 2. 1833). After 1867, a period of intensive American exploration of Alaska began. (6) Another noteworthy international collecting effort of the Imperial Botanic Garden in the early 1800s also was spear- headed by Consul-General Langsdorff. Assisted by the botanist Imperial Botanic Garden 33 Ludwig Riedel (1790-1861) and the gardener Bernhard Luschnat, he organized a remarkable program to send back live plants and other collections to Petersburg from the rich flora of Brazil. During the years 1821-34, Langsdorff and Riedel traveled widely around Brazil, collecting and studying the flora. Most of this time (1821-28) was spent in the Amazon Basin. Between about 1831 and 1835,!° Riedel and Luschnat operated what was in effect a little Rio de Janeiro “branch” of the Petersburg Garden, organized expressly for sending back live plants and other botanical materials to Russia on a regular basis. Altogether, this team—Langsdorff, Riedel, and Luschnat—was responsible for sending back sever- al thousand pots of live plants, about 100,000 herbarium specimens, comprising about 10,000 species, and numerous wood, fruit, and seed collections. It is especially interesting that these collections from Brazil were the first tropical col- lections to be added to the herbarium at St. Petersburg in pre-Revolutionary time; the first tropical collections to be added in post-Revolutionary time were also made in Brazil. Furthermore, some of the first tropical collections to be made by Soviet botanists after World War II (1947) came from Brazil (p. 104). Thus, Russian botanists have had a longtime interest in the plants of Brazil. (2, 4, 7, 8 [cf. Bobrov, p. 42, and Sokolov, p. 218]) To accommodate tropical and subtropical plants at the St. Petersburg Garden, a greenhouse-building program already had been launched by Director Fischer in 1823. By the end of the 19th century, the Garden had some of the most cele- brated conservatories in Europe. The palm and Victoria amazonica conservatories, completed in 1899, were extremely large and became widely known outside Russia. By the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the 10These dates are variously given as 1831 or 1832 to 1835 or 1836. 34 Komarov Botanical Institute Botanic Garden had become a virtual botanical academy covering nearly all phases of plant science and including a public exhibit museum, founded in the same year that the Imperial Botanic Garden was organized (1823). This mu- seum was dedicated to illustrating the importance of plants to man. It is to be distinguished from the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences. By now the herbarium had nearly 2 million specimens and the library over 40,000 volumes. The Department of Living Plants, directed by V. I. Lipsky, was maintaining about 26,000 '! species and varieties inside 28 greenhouses and another 5000 species in the outdoor plant- ings of the arboretum and park spread over 15 hectares (about 37.5 acres) on Aptekarsky Island. Altogether, there were 10 scientific departments and a total staff of 148, including 30 professional botanists. Among them were some very notable botanists of the ttme: V. A. Dubjansky, B. A. Fedtschenko, A. F. Flerow, V. L. Komarov, V. I. Lipsky, I. V. Palibin, R. U. Roshevitz, and A. S. Bondarzev, who 1s still active, to name a few (2, 3). For all its activity and international im- portance, however, the Imperial Botanic Garden had its problems during pre-Revolutionary time: . the Botanic Garden, like the majority of research institu- tions of tzarist Russia, was restricted in its development by the scarcity of finance, by the absence of planning of research work, by the shortage of scientific workers and staff employed, by still insuf- ficient contact of the research work as a whole with the everyday requirements of Agriculture and Industry. The bureaucratic ele- ment which was very strong in the administration of the Garden suffocated every animated undertaking, especially in research work, and hampered the progressive development of the Garden. (2, p. 11) The coming of the Revolution brought a sharp disruption in the activities of the Garden and the closing of a long and MAvrorin (7) gives the total figure of 28,000, which he compares to the present assemblage of 25,000 species and varieties in the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (England). From Baranov and Bobrov (8) ®. B. Pumep Friedrich E. L. Fischer (1782-1854), first director of Botanic Garden, 1823-50. 9. J. Perea Eduard A. Regel (1815-92), director of Botanic Garden 1855-66, 1875-92. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute — om Baranov and Bobrov (8) Bopue J. Ucagenko Boris L. Isatchenko (1871- 1948), director of Botanic Garden 1917-30. Imperial Botanic Garden 35 rather illustrious scientific era. A. A. Fischer von Waldeim (1839-1918) was director at the time, and, in keeping with the general aims of the Revolution, he was immediately re- placed in 1917 by a Russian botanist, Academician B. L. Isatchenko (1871-1948), the first ‘‘elected’’ director. Con- cerning the immediate period that followed, Lebedev et al. write (2, p. 12): During the first difficult years suffered by the young Soviet Republic, the years of devastation, lack of fuel, interruptions in the supply of electric energy and water, disrepair of sewerage, the decline of printing, etc., special attention was devoted to the rescue and preservation of the valuable scientific collections of the Botanic Garden, the great national treasure. Fewer greenhouses were maintained in working order, and many live plant collections perished; some of the Garden’s de- partments ceased to function; visitor attendance to the green- houses and park dropped from about 80,000 annually, just prior to 1917, to less than 2000 in 1918. It was not until 1922 that normal activity was more or less restored, and new growth and activities began. For example, a new Department of Geobotany was founded in that year, and lo? W923} dove number of visitors was nearly 30,000. A change in fortunes was signaled in 1921, after the Revo- lution, when the Botanic Garden in Petrograd, as the city was now called, was made a subordinate unit of the ‘‘People’s Commissariat of Agriculture of the Russian Republic of the USSR” (see footnotes on pp. 4 and 40). This was done to recognize the stature of the Garden as a “research and instructive-educative institution of world-wide scientific signi- ficance, embracing all branches of theoretical and applied botany” (2, p. 13). In 1925, the Garden was given increased status when it was assigned ‘‘All-Union”’ importance, thus becoming a national rather than provincial institution. 36 Komarov Botanical Institute Once the Garden was “‘back on its feet’”’ it was charged with many new research tasks, covering the full range of botanical inquiry. Special emphasis was placed on floristic, geo- botanic, and phytogeographic studies, including vegetation mapping, which were directed toward the surveying of plant resources in the USSR and adjacent countries. A chief object of this large-scale survey was to find plants suitable for intro- duction and utilization in agriculture and commerce. A much more practical orientation suddenly prevailed than in immedi- ate pre-Revolutionary times, and there followed at the Garden, as throughout the Soviet Union generally, a long period of domestically focussed botanical activity, concentrated on the Russian flora and its uses. Only since World War II have Russian botanists turned significant attention to the study of plants beyond the borders of the USSR. During the 18th century the Garden had no publication means of its own, and the contributions of its early scientists, such as the several floras of Sobolewsky (Flora Petropolitana, 1799; Sanktpeterburgskaya Flora. . . , 1801-02), describ- ing the native and introduced flora of the Petersburg district, were published privately. The same was true of the Siegesbeck and Terechowsky catalogs, the former having been printed in Riga. Publication activities of the Garden increased enormously during the 19th century especially toward the end. In 1835 the Garden began to publish what was in effect its first serial, Index Seminum quae Hortus Botanicus Imperialis Petropol- tanus pro Mutua Communicatione Offert, compiled by Fisch- er and Meyer. It was not merely a seed list because it carried a supplement (Accendut Animadversiones Botanicae Nonnulae) in which descriptions of new genera and species, critical notes on systematics, and other short taxonomic papers appeared. Imperial Botanic Garden 37 In fact, Index Seminum constituted the first taxonomic journal of the Garden. This catalog appeared annually with supplement until 1846 and again from 1855 to 1869. Between 1846 and 1855 only two issues appeared but under a different name (Semina Delecta, Collectione Anni 1852 [1853], quae Hortus . . .), which, however, included the supplement. In 1870, the name was changed from Index Seminum to Delectus Seminum, and the supplement was dropped, stripping the annual catalog of its taxonomic features and making it a simple seed exchange list. Except for short breaks during the Revolution (1918-19) and World War II (1942-45), Delectus Seminum has ap- peared annually up to the present time, although undergoing several name changes corresponding to changes in the name of the institution. The early issues of this serial are extremely rare today, and no library in the world, including the library of the Komarov Botanical Institute, has a complete set. (2, Lebedev in 8) The first fascicle of Acta Horti Petropolitani appeared in 1871. It included E. R. Trautvetter’s ‘“‘Short Outline of the History of the Imperial Garden of St. Petersburg,’ which was reprinted later as a separate book. With the founding of this periodical, the Garden now had its own outlet for floras, monographs, and other large botanical works, hitherto of necessity published in outside journals, e.g., in the ‘Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists,” as well as a formal outlet for shorter taxonomic papers. Previously, these short papers had gone into the supplement of Index Seminum, dis- continued with the beginning of Delectus Seminum (1870). At first the primary language of Acta was Latin, but in the 1890s Russian became the only language of publication. Under variously modified names, corresponding to changes ’ 38 Komarov Botanical Institute in the name of the Garden, Acta—or Trudy (‘‘Proceedings .. .”), as the journal has always been known for short in Russian—has been published continuously from 1871 down to the present time, although it underwent major reorganiza- tion and expansion in 1932 after the Botanical Institute was formed. Bibliographically, therefore, Acta Hort: Petropolitam is considered to have terminated in 1932. Through the years the large majority of papers dealt with the systematics and geography of plants, and some of the Garden’s most outstand- ing contributions appeared in this periodical. A second scientific journal was started in 1901 in response to the growing need for a quick means of publication for shorter papers, including critical literature reviews, “polem- ical’’ notes, and news items about the activities of the Garden. It was called the Bulletin du Jardin Imperial Botanique de St.-Pétersbourg (also had a Russian ttle) at first, but, as with other periodicals, underwent a number of name changes sub- sequently (194, 1918, 1932). The Bulletin differed from Acta in not being limited to systematics and geography; papers on all phases of botany were included. In 1902 the “Bulletin of Plant Disease Control” first ap- peared, which later (1907) was called Morbi Plantarum and in 1912 the ‘“‘Annals of the Experiment Station for Seed- Testing”’ began. Perhaps the periodical best known today to taxonomic botanists around the world is Notulae Systematicae ex Herb- ario Instituti Botanici Nomine V. L. Komarovit Academiae Scientiarum URSS, which first appeared in 1919 under the Botanic Garden’s name of that time and under the editorship of B. A. Fedtschenko. It was initiated to provide the botanists in the herbarium with their own publication outlet for revisions, nomenclatural notes, and descriptions of new species. Up to this time, the herbarium had not had its Impental Botanic Garden 39 own publication, and contributions from the herbarium had been published either in the Acta or the Bulletin. Sometimes this was a very slow means of publication, and the herbarium needed a quicker outlet. A cryptogamic series was added to the Notulae in 1922. Both series have continued to appear up to the present time, although undergoing reorganization and name changes in 1964 (see p. 167). Although the Garden had by 1917 already branched into seed-testing, plant introduction, pathology, horticulture, physi- ology, morphology, and anatomy, its strongest research efforts continued to be in taxonomy and geobotany; its most impor- tant contributions during the premerger period were made in these areas in the form of monographs, revisions, floras, and vegetation studies, including maps. After the Revolution, the herbarium was organized into the following sections: (1) Gen- eral, (2) Middle and Eastern Asia, (3) European Russia and Crimea, (4) Caucasus, (5) Turkestan, (6) Siberia, (7) Far Fast, (8) Petrograd Flora, and (9) Reference. It will be seen that these divisions were similar although not identical to those existing in the Botanical Museum at this time (see foot- more prey): From about 1922 on, expeditionary activity picked up rap- idly, following the interruption caused by the civil war, and collecting trips were taken to all parts of the USSR. Among the many who made important collections for the Garden’s herbarium over the succeeding years, the following persons should be mentioned: E. G. Bobrov and others (Bashkiria), V. I. Smirnov (European Russia), N. M. Savicz (Kola Penin- sula), B. A. Fedtschenko (Central Asia), M. M. Ijin (Astra- khan), V. I. Lipsky (Caucasus), A. A. Dzevanovsky (Caucasus and Crimea), O. A. Enden (Kazakhstan), N. V. Shipchinsky (Kazakhstan), V. N. Sukaczev and G. I. Poplavskaya (Baikal region), and V. L. Komarov (Kamtchatka and Far East). 40 Komarov Botanical Institute These extensive collecting activities culminated in a large number of taxonomic papers and quite a few important books and monographs. Noteworthy here was the cooperative effort of the staff in publishing the 6-volume “Flora of the Southeast European Part of the USSR,” started in 1927 and completed in 1936 after the merger. Also, Komarov’s 3-volume “Flora of Kamtchatka”’ (1927-30) deserves special mention, although it did not approach the same critical taxonomic level and con- sequently never has held the same significance in the literature of this region as the classic ‘‘Flora of Kamtchatka and Adjacent Islands,” published by Eric Hulten at about the same time (1926-30). After the merger in 1931, the botanists at the Garden con- tinued to carry on some of the expeditionary and research ac- tivities that were in progress, as already indicated, but the founding of the Institute also gave birth to a whole new cycle of projects, which then consumed the joint efforts of most of the former Garden and Museum staffs. As of 1931 the Imperial Botanic Garden, by now called the ‘Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR,’ had been in existence as an independent institution for 108 years (1823- 1931) since reorganization, and during this time it had had the following succession of directors (years of leadership given in parentheses): F. Fischer (1823-50), C. A. Meyer (1850- 121823-1917 — Imperial Botanic Garden or Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg (Petrograd, after 1914; see footnote 2, p.4); renamed “Imperial Botanic Garden in the name of Peter the Great” at the 200th anniversary jubilee in 1913. 1917-1918 — Principal Botanic Garden of Petrograd. There is some ques- tion whether the second date is 1918 or 1921; see next item. 1918-1925 — Principal Botanic Garden of the Russian Republic of the USSR (RSFSR); subordinated to “People’s Commissariat of Agriculture” of the Russian Republic in 1921. 1925-1931 — Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR; transferred to the jurisdiction of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1930. Imperial Botanic Garden 41 55), E. A. Regel (1855-66), E. R. Trautvetter (1866-75), E. A. Regel (1875-92, second term), A. F. Batalin (1892-96), A. A. Fischer von Waldheim (1896-1917), and B. L. Isat- chenko (1917-30). Many other distinguished botanists had worked in the Garden during all these years besides the direc- tors and others already mentioned or discussed. CHAPTER 4 Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences [1714] 1835-1931 he Botanical Museum was an outgrowth of the botanical collections in the old Kunstkammer established by Peter I in St. Petersburg about 1714. The Kunstkammer was a gener- al museum of sorts—a gallery or “‘cabinet’’ of arts and curios, which soon was affiliated with the Imperial Academy of Sciences founded in St. Petersburg in 1725. Thus, the origins of the Botanical Museum go back to about the same time, 1714, as the origins of the Imperial Botanic Garden. After languishing for many years in a Kunstkammer attic with no care and no one to study them, the botanical collec- tions were finally given appropriate attention and space in 1823 when the botanist C. B. Trinius (1778-1844) was in- vited to join the staff of the Kunstkammer. He found the col- lections in a deplorable state—completely disorganized and badly insect-damaged—although there were some extremely valuable old specimens among them; he began at once to sal- 43 44 Komarov Botanical Institute vage what he could. These collections came from various expe- ditions organized by the Academy in the 18th and early 19th centuries for the scientific exploration of Russia and adjacent countries and included such important specimens as those of J. G. Gmelin (Siberia), G. W. Steller (Siberia), and S. G. Gmelin and J. A. Giildenstadt (Caucasus). As the Academy’s museum, the Kunstkammer served as the repository for all scientific and historical objects collected in the name of the Academy. Bobrov (in 8, p. 72) suggests that the sad state of the botanical collections at the Kunstkammer may have been the reason the celebrated Pallas did not leave the bulk of his Russian plants to the Academy of Sciences but sold them abroad. P. S. Pallas (1741-1811) was one of the real founders of botanical research in Russia. He worked at the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. During his younger years he tramped all over Russia, and in his later years as a senior academician devoted his talents to writing about the flora of his adopted land. He was a natural historian who wrote not only about plants but about animals and other things. His Flora Rossica, written in Latin, was the first attempt that had ever been made to prepare a manual on the plants of Russia. It was never completed; volume 1, parts 1 and 2, were pub- lished in 1784 and 1788, respectively; part 1 of the second volume was published posthumously in 1815. The first part was soon (1786) translated into Russian by a Russian natu- ralist, V. F. Zuyev. Only fragmentary collections of Pallas are preserved in Leningrad today (4). (Baranov im 8, p. 2 1) Trinius was really the first curator of botany at the Kunst- kammer. Even though there had been someone in the museum who took at least a passing interest in botany as recently as 1809, all through the 1700s virtually nothing had been done to study and publish on the accumulating collections, and Trinius set about at once to organize scientific investigations of Botanical Museum 45 them. He himself took up a study of the grass collections per- haps because of their superior preservation, and these studies soon brought him worldwide fame as an authority on the tax- onomy of the family Gramineae. At his pleading the Academy convened a special conference shortly after his arrival at the Kunstkammer in 1823 to consider the fate of its botanical collections, and the conference authorized the establishment of a special Botanical Museum within the Kunstkammer. Subse- quently, Trinius began to build a regular herbarium. As a first order of business he had herbarium cabinets built, obtained paper for mounting the loose specimens, and organized the salvaged collections so that they would be available for study. He began an aggressive program of acquiring new collections. In 1826, the Academy bought the Gorenky herbarium of Razumovsky which included upward to 10,000 species; in 1827 the collection of Moscow professor G. F. Hoffmann (1760-1826) was acquired; and in 1828 the outstanding col- lection of F. A. Marschall von Bieberstein (1768-1826), in- cluding the vouchers for his classic Flora Taurico-Caucasica, (1808, 1819), came to the Academy’s herbarium. This 3- volume publication was the first substantive work on the flora of the Crimean-Caucasian region; previously, only scattered notes and articles had been published. Bieberstein’s herbar- ium '? was preserved for more than a hundred years in an unavailable condition, and only recently has it been curated and made accessible to botanical scholars. The plant collections were moved in 1835 from the old Kunstkammer quarters to a new building occupied until 1931. At this time the Botanical Museum was formally es- tablished as a separate institution, physically and adminis- tratively, within the Academy’s structure. Trinius was named ™Cuoapsanunosa, J. A. 1965. TepOapuit Mapmasaza Budepmreiina. Bot. xypu. 50: 564-565. (Smoljaninova, L. A. Gerbariy Marshalla Bibershteyna [“The herbarium of Marschall Bieberstein’”]. Bot. Zhurn.). 46 Komarov Botanical Institute its first director, a post that he held until the end of his life in 1844. It is problematical whether to regard 1823 or 1835 as the formal founding date of the Botanical Museum because each was a milestone year in the revitalizing of the Academy’s botanical section and in the development of an independent botanical museum. Official chronologies usually designate 1835 as the founding date and the beginning of Trinius’ di- rectorship, but at least one historian of the Museum (Bobrov in 8, p. 73) would place the founding in 1823. The beginning of the revitalization of botany at the Acad- emy coincided with Fischer’s arrival in St. Petersburg to head up the newly organized Imperial Botanic Garden on Aptekar- sky Island. Undoubtedly, the simultaneous awakenings at the Kunstkammer and Aptekarsky Ogorod were mutually rein- forcing and both related to the cessation of activities at the Gorenky botanic garden of Razumovsky in Moscow. The Botanical Museum had a very small scientific staff and a limited, if aggressive, research program during the years that followed; it was really not unul after the turn of the century that the staff and program expanded significantly. Prior to 1900, the scientific staff consisted of the director and one other botanist who was called curator. A. H. G. Bongard (1786— 1839) was curator in 1835 when the move was made, and he was occupied during his curatorship with the study of Mertens’ Sitka collections (p. 32) and the South American collections of Langsdorff and Riedel. After Bongard’s death in 1839, F. J. Ruprecht (1814-70) was curator for a time, but K. F. Meins- hausen (1819-99) occupied this post during most of the latter half of the century (1851-96). Ruprecht later worked also at the Garden, until he became director of the Museum in 1859. Very distinguished botanists were employed in the Museum during the 19th century and, although few in number, they published prolifically. Succeeding Trinius as director after his Botanical Museum 47 death in 1844 was C. A. Meyer (1795-1855), who had pre- viously been Fischer’s assistant at the Garden and who had been taken into the Academy in 1839, with the death of Bon- gard. Meyer continued his connections and work with the Garden until his death in 1855 and was the only botanist to have had the distinction of being director of both institutions during his lifetime. From 1850, when Fischer left and Meyer became director of the Garden too, he held both directorships simultaneously until the end of his life. Thus, he was the sec- ond director of both the Museum and the Garden. Meyer was followed in succession at the Museum by Ruprecht, Maxi- mowicz, and Korshinsky, who closed out the century. Ruprecht, under the tutelage of Trintus, first studied grass systematics, but later turned to floristics and geobotany. His classic flora of the St. Petersburg district, Flora Ingrica, 1s still interesting for the nomenclatural reformation attempted there. He strove for a sort of historical priority, recognizing the cha- otic condition into which post-Linnaean literature was lapsing. He was the first to consider the historical development of the vegetation of Russia in his “‘Geobotanical Investigations on Chernozems”’ (1866). Ruprecht worked in the Museum for 31 years until his death in 1870, serving as director for the last 15 years. His chief regret was the shortage of scientific help, which made it impossible to curate the collections properly, to say nothing of studying them. At the time of Ruprecht’s death, C. J. Maximowicz '* (1827-1891) was chief botanist at the Imperial Botanic Gar- den, and he continued in this capacity, in charge of the Gar- den’s herbarium, until he died, even though he was appointed director of the Botanical Museum in 1871. His earliest and most important major work on Russian plants was Primitiae MK.1. Maximowicz in the Russian language. 48 Komarov Botanical Institute Florae Amurensis, published in 1859. Along with Bieber- stein’s Flora Taurico-Caucasica (1808-19) and the Flora Baicalensi-Daburica (1842-56) by N. S. Turczaninov (1796-1864), it is considered one of the great classical regional floras of Russia, which still have much value (5). From 1860 to 1864 Maximowicz traveled in Japan, and in 1866 he pub- lished his first paper on the plants of Japan. He soon accumu- lated the largest collection of Japanese plants that had ever been brought together—thanks in large part to his many con- tacts—and became an astute scholar of the Japanese flora. Among his many scholarly contributions on the flora of Japan are several extremely important papers (Diagnoses Breves Plantarum Novarum Japoniae et Mandshuriae |1866-77); Diagnoses Plantarum Novarum Asiaticarum [1877-93]). A complete set of his Japanese collections can be found only in Leningrad today. !° The fortunes of the Museum began to change rather dra- matically under Maximowicz’s successor, S. I. Korshinsky (1861-1900), whose short but very significant tenure as direc- tor set the course of the Botanical Museum for years to come. When Maximowicz died, Professor Korshinsky was called from Tomsk University in 1892 by the Botanic Garden to fill the vacant position of chief botanist. A year later he was ap- pointed director of the Museum as well, and continued to hold both positions until 1897, after which he devoted full time to the Museum. He died in 1900 at the early age of 39, having been director for only 7 years. It can truthfully be said that he “got the Museum moving again.” Before coming to St. Pe- tersburg he was already well known for his theoretical papers on the geography and systematics of the Russian flora. While at the Garden he published an interesting theoretical paper on 15Ohwi, Jisaburo. 1965. Flora of Japan (in English), edited by Frederick G. Meyer and Egbert H. Walker. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1067 pp. Cf. p. 7. Botanical Museum 49 the origin of species (‘‘Heterogenesis and Evolution,” 1899). He is chiefly to be remembered, however, for organizing a number of very important research and publication efforts that were to last long after his death (see below) and for start- ing to expand the staff. In 1900, a second curator’s position was authorized, and the mycologist V. G. Tranzschel (1868- 1942) '¢ was brought to the Museum. Two years earlier, Korshinsky had also made a wise choice for the Museum when he brought in D. I. Litvinow (1854-1929), who was well known for his studies of Siberian and Turkmenian plants, to replace the late Meinshausen. The indefatigable Litvinow proved to be a “‘natural”’ for the curatorship, and he carried much of the burden of the work in the Museum during the early years of the 20th century. Tranzschel immediately organized a Department of Cryp- togamic Plants and vigorously began to build up the previously meager cryptogamic collections by means of expeditions and exchanges. Much help with mosses was given by V. F. Brother- us, a professor at Helsinki University, and two botanists at the Garden, A. A. Elenkin and V. P. Savicz, identified many of the lichens. In 1912, the bryologist L. I. Savicz-Lubitskaya joined the staff of the department. By 1931 this department also had its own phycologist (N.N. Voronikhin) and lichenolo- gist (K. A. Rassadina), and mycologist Tranzschel was still active. In 1898, the Imperial Botanic Garden had organized its cryptogamic herbarium into a separate “Institute of Cryp- togamic Plants,” covering algae, fungi, lichens, and mosses. Thus, within 2 years of each other both the Museum and the Garden had recognized the importance of cryptogamic botany and strengthened its standing in their respective institutions. After the untimely death of Korshinsky in 1900, Academi- cian M. S. Voronin (1838-1903), a mycologist, was made 16Tranzschel’s initials are sometimes given as V.A. rather than V.G. 50 Komarov Botanical Institute acting director of the Museum, and two years later (1902) Academician I. P. Borodin (1847-1930) was appointed per- manent director. Borodin served in this post until the end of his life, a period of about 28 years, and had the difficult task of managing the Museum during the closing years of the tsar- ist period, through the very trying years of civil war during the Revolution, and into the first years of Soviet power. At his death he was succeeded as director by V. L. Komarov (1869- 1945). Borodin!’ attended Petersburg University in the 1860s, where he was one of the first students of the noted 1 9th-century Russian botanists A. N. Beketov (1825-1902) and A. S. Famintzin (1835-1918). Initially, his researches were in plant physiology, and in 1876 he published an important paper, ‘Physiological Investigations of the Respiration of Leafy Shoots,” which, along with other experimental researches, attracted foreign attention not only to him but to Russian botany in general. Later, when he assumed the directorship of the Botanical Museum, he became deeply involved in botanical education and administration. For a brief time (1917-19) he was vice president of the Academy of Sciences. Some measure of Borodin’s stature and influence in Rus- sian botany is provided by the fact that he was a central figure in the founding of the Russian Botanical Society (RBO) in 1915, today called the All-Union Botanical Society (VBO), and became its first president, serving until his death. '* Only 7. Il. Bopoguu (K 100-zermo co qua powkjenna, 1847-1947). Bor. aypu. CCCP. 32: 132-134 1947. (I. P. Borodin (K 100-letiyu dnya rozhdeniya, 1847-1947) {“To the 100th anniversary from birth”]. Bot. Zhurn. SSSR.) —See also Lavrenko and Zalensky, footnote 18. 18SRBO=Russkoe Botanicheskoe Obshchestvo (Pyccxoe Borannueckoe O6mectrBo = PbO). VBO =Vsesoyuznoe Botanicheskoe Obshchestvo (Bcecowsxu0e B. 0. = BBO). Information on the Botanical Society and its journal is taken largely from the following two recent papers commemorating the 50th anniversary Botanical Museum 51 three other Russian botanists have had the high distinction of this post, and, interestingly, all have been associated with the Leningrad botanical institutions. '? Borodin also is regarded today as the founder of the official journal of the Society, Bo- tanichesky Zhurnal, first issued in 1916, and he served as editor-in-chief until his death (see p. 169). Despite the fact that he was nearly blind in his later years, he insisted on read- ing the printer’s proofs personally. From its inception the Russian Botanical Society had its headquarters at the Botanical Museum in Petrograd, directed by Borodin, and this affiliation continued until the merger of the Museum and Garden in 1931, after which the new Botan- of the Society and journal. The first paper gives a lengthy historical sketch, and the second paper gives brief biographies of the 14 most prominent founding botanists, including I. P. Borodin. Cf. also Bobrov (in 8, p. 80). Jlappenro, E. M., n A. A. IOnaros. 1965. Ilatpzecat set Bcecow3Horo OoTaHH- ueckoro oOmectBa. bot. «ypu. 50: 1205-1247. (Lavrenko, E. M., and A. A. Yunatov. Pyat’desyat let Vsesoyuznogo Botanicheskogo Obshchestvo [“Fifty- year anniversary of the All-Union Botanical Society”]. Bot. Zhurn.) — A list of all branches of the Society is given at the end of the article. Jlappeuko, E. M., a O. B. 3azencrun. 1965. Boranuku-oprann3atop PyccKoro Oorannueckoro oOmectBa (K 50-1erm0 BBO). Bor. wypu. 50: 1751-1768. (C 15 noptpetamu.) (Lavrenko, E. M., and O. V. Zalensky. Botaniki-organizatory Russkogo Botanicheskogo Obshchestvo (K 50-letiyu VBO) (“Organizing botanists of the Russian Botanical Society (To the 50th anniversary of VBO)”]. Bot. Zhurn. [“With 15 portraits” ].) Lavrenko, Yunatov, and Zalensky are all associated with the Komarov Botanical Institute at present, and Lavrenko is currently president of the All-Union Botanical Society (see footnote 19). 19Presidents of the All-Union (formerly Russian) Botanical Society: 1916-30 I. P. Borodin (1847-1930) 1930-45 V.L.Komarov (1869-1945 ) 1946-63 V.N. Sukaczev (1880-1967 ) 1963- E. M. Lavrenko (1900- ) Borodin, Komarov, and Sukaczev served as editors-in-chief of the Society’s Botanical Journal during their respective tenures, but Lavrenko does not also serve in this capacity. Borodin and Komarov held the presidency for life, but Academician Sukaczev retired from this post while in good health and served as Honorary President. He was one of the oldest and most revered botanists in the Soviet Union when he died on February 9, 1967 [while this book was in press]. 52 Komarov Botanical Institute ical Institute became the headquarters, remaining so until the present time. Today the All-Union Botanical Society still depends heavily on the Institute for basic support and leader- ship. 2° The long-standing close association of the Botanical Society with Leningrad’s Botanical Institute and its predeces- sor institution can be appreciated from the fact that the Society and the Institute celebrated their 5Oth and 250th anniversaries, respectively, in joint meetings at the Institute on December 15-18, 1965 (see p. 191). In view of this intimate relation- ship and of the lifelong dedication of Borodin to the work of the Society, I will digress briefly to consider the origins of the Russian Botanical Society before returning to the work of the Botanical Museum. The Russian Botanical Society was officially founded in December 1915 at a meeting of 29 leading botanists, rep- resenting institutions all around the country, held in Petro- grad under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences. The planning had been instigated in April of that same year by Kiev botanists. The pioneer Russian cytologist S. G. Nava- shin (1857-1930) and two of his eminent colleagues, A. V. Fomin (1869-1935) and E. F. Votchal (1864-1937), ad- dressed a petition on behalf of the Kiev Society of Naturalists, to Petrograd’s and the whole country’s most senior botanists, Academicians Borodin and Famintzin, requesting that the Academy of Sciences convene a special meeting of Russian botanists to consider founding both a botanical society and an official journal for the society. This proposal was received favorably, and Borodin, supported by the elder Famintzin, now 80 years old, began at once to lay the groundwork. In the fall of 1915, the Botanical Section of the Petrograd 20Cf. remarks, signed by both the All-Union Botanical Society and the Editorial Board of Botanichesky Zhurnal, prefaced to the November 1965 issue of the journal (50[11]: I-IV), saluting the Botanical Institute’s 250th anniversary. Botanical Museum 53 Society of Naturalists elected an ad boc committee of eight to draw up a constitution. This committee (Borodin, N. A. Busch, L. A. Ivanov, V. L. Komarov, S. P. Kostychev, G. A. Nadson, A. A. Richter, V. N. Sukaczev) also drew up a plan for a botanical journal, and its work was approved at the founding meeting in December 20-21. At that meeting a smaller committee, selected from the ad hoc committee, was appointed to complete the work of organizing the society and its journal. This committee, chaired by Borodin, also included Busch, Komarov, Kostychev, and Sukaczev. The first annual meeting of the new Russian Botanical Society was held in Moscow on December 16-19, 1916. By this time the Society already had about 150 members, includ- ing the 29 charter members. The Society’s first Council (Soviet) was elected. Academician Famintzin was named hon- orary president, and the other members of the Council’s execu- tive committee were: Borodin, president; Navashin and V. I. Palladin, comrade presidents; Busch, secretary; Sukaczev, treasurer; Komarov, Kostychev, and V. G. Tranzschel. It 1s noteworthy that all of these officers were now living and work- ing in Petrograd. In addition, the Council also had representa- tives from those cities of the USSR which had five or more members in the Society. This meeting also elected the first Editorial Board of the Botanical Journal (executive committee except Famintzin and Navashin) and named the first honorary members of the Society, who were Borodin, Famintzin, J. S. Medvedev, Navashin, L. V. Reinhardt, E. P. Sheremetevaya, and K. A. Timiryazev. Today the All-Union Botanical Society boasts 43 affiliated branches throughout the Soviet Union with 4200 active mem- bers, including 900 from Leningrad and Moscow. Growth has been especially great in the postwar years, being almost three- fold, both in branches and members, since 1956. Some of the 54 Komarov Botanical Institute major branches rank as “Republic” botanical societies (e.g., Ukrainian Botanical Society), but are affiliated to the All- Union Society with the rights of regular branches. The Leningrad Branch is the “central organization’”’ of the Society. Through the years the Society’s fortunes have experienced some ups and downs. The most difficult years were 1932-45, when the Academy lost control of the Society, and the Society lost control of its official journal. At its lowest point in 1932 the Society almost ceased to exist, and in 1935 there were only 228 registered members. During these years the Society was placed under the jurisdiction of the Peoples’ Commissar- iat of Education of the Russian Federated Republic (RSFSR) and called the State All-Russian Botanical Society. Official gatherings were difficult or impossible except on a local scale. In 1945, the Society was again returned to the jurisdiction of the Academy of Sciences, and the Botanical Journal again became the official organ. At this time the Society was renamed the All-Union Botanical Society of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Since then meetings and conferences have been resumed on a national scale, and the work of the Society has expanded enormously. at at at When Borodin took over the Botanical Museum, his staff consisted of Litvinow and Tranzschel, but during his director- ship it was expanded sixfold. In 1912, four new botanists joined the staff, and in the next 2 years three more were added so that the vascular herbarium could now be divided into departments (Bobrov in 8, p. 79):?! All Non-European Countries, Western Europe, European Russia, Caucasus and 21Schischkin, several pages later in the same book (8, p. 81), gives a slightly different breakdown of the herbarium departments: Crimea-Caucasus, Turkestan, European Russia, Siberia and Far East, and General Herbarium. The chief difference is that All Non-European Countries and Western Europe are combined into the General Herbarium. Botanical Museum 55 Crimea, Turkestan, Siberia, and Eastern Asia. By 1917 and the time of the Revolution, the following botanists were on the staff of the Museum: Vascular Herbarium—l. P. Borodin (Di- rector of Museum), D. I. Litvinow, N. A. Busch, E. A. Busch, P.N. Krylov, V. N. Sukaczev, B. N. Gorodkov, S. S. Gane- shin, and E. I. Steinberg; Cryptogamic Herbarium—V. G. Tranzschel, L. I. Savicz-Lubitskaya, and K. A. Rassadina. After the Revolution the staff size remained stabilized more or less at about a dozen botanists, although changes occurred of course. In 1930, just prior to the merger with the Garden, the staff was comprised of the following botanists: Vascular Her- barium—V. L. Komarov (Director of Museum), B. K. Schisch- kin, N. A. Busch, E. A. Busch, Gorodkov, Ganeshin, Steinberg, and A. I. Tolmatchev; Cryptogamic Herbarium Tranzschel, N. N. Voronikhin, Savicz-Lubitskaya, and Rassadina. Over the years the main tasks and goals of the Museum tended to be very similar to those being pursued by the Botan- ic Garden, although the latter institution always had the larger staff and carried out a wider range of research activi- ties. The Academy’s institution was after all a ““museum,” and its botanical research was almost entirely herbarium-oriented; however, in the mid-19th century Academician N. I. Zhelez- nov was conducting the first Russian researches and some of the earliest in general on plant embryology and the physiology of development. The Botanic Garden, on the other hand, not only had a herbarium and carried on many herbarium-related investigations, but it was also an orthodox “garden” with out- door and indoor plantings. Thus, the Garden staff was able to branch out into experimental botany and horticulture. The Museum scientists confined themselves almost exclusively to floristics, systematics, and phytogeography. In many ways the Garden completely overshadowed the Museum through the 56 Komarov Botanical Institute years; nevertheless, many highly important contributions came from the Museum staff. It is quite clear from what has already been said that the lines between the Garden and Museum were not always sharp- ly drawn. There was much collaboration and crossing back and forth between the two institutions by the respective staffs, and not just a few of the outstanding St. Petersburg botanists held positions in both the Museum and the Garden at one time or another during their professional careers. In fact, as previously indicated, it was not uncommon for botanists elected to the Academy to hold positions in both institutions simultaneously. This seems to have been particularly true in the 19th century when well-trained botanists were scarce in Imperial Russia. The Garden seemed to lead the way in bring- ing talented scholars to St. Petersburg, and the Museum often pirated the Garden talent when it had vacancies or new openings. The principal mission of the botanists at the Museum was to investigate the flora and vegetation of Russian-and neigh- boring countries, and to this end through the years the Acad- emy sent numerous expeditions to all parts of the vast Russian domain. After 1835, the Botanical Museum took the place of the Kunstkammer as the national repository for botanical col- lections made in the name of the Academy, and the Museum’s prestige also attracted many other important collections made by botanists not affiliated with the Academy. As a result, the herbarium of the Museum, which began to grow rapidly after Trinius arrived, increased steadily in size until by 1917 it contained about 1.3 million specimens (Schischkin im 8, p. 81). Of all the important collections that came to reside in the Botanical Museum, perhaps the two most valuable were Bieberstein’s herbarium (p. 45), secured by Trinius in 1828, and Trinius’ own herbarium, documenting his many taxo- Botanical Museum 57 nomic papers on the Gramineae, which he turned over to the Academy in 1841. These two herbaria have been maintained separately from the general herbarium even to the present day. Other extremely valuable herbaria acquired by the Museum during the 19th century were those of Bongard (mosses), Borszczov, Chamuisso (shores of Bering Sea), Korshinsky, Mertens (Russian America), Nees, and Ruprecht. One of the most important Alaskan collections, apart from Mertens’ collection, was Kastalsky’s, mentioned earlier (p. 32) in con- nection with Alaskan exploration. After 1900 the expeditionary work of the Museum in- creased considerably, and a vigorous program of fieldwork was carried on right up to the time of the merger in 1931 (2, 8, 9, 10). Litvinow and Borodin conducted a series of expedi- tions to eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East early in the century in connection with their researches for the “Flora of Siberia and the Far East.’ Later, Litvinow carried out exten- sive fieldwork in the Leningrad region and across the Kola Peninsula. Other important expeditions during this period took the Museum’s botanists all over Russia, and their field- work resulted in some significant publications. The efforts of the following botanists are particularly noteworthy: Sukaczev (Lake Baikal, 1912-18), Krylov (Central Siberia, 1915-16), Ganeshin (Kola Peninsula, 1917-30), Gorodkov (Western Siberia and Arctic Urals, 1917-31), N. A. and E. A. Busch (Caucasus, 1925-30), and Tolmatchev (Arctic Russia, 1926- 30). Tolmatchev (1903— ) has become widely known for his botanical studies of the Russian Arctic, which have resulted in numerous systematic and floristic papers. In 1960, the first part of his comprehensive and taxonomically critical “Arctic Flora of the USSR” was published, and four more parts have appeared since (1963, 1964, 1966). The first four parts cover the monocotyledons. The fifth part begins the dicotyle- 58 Komarov Botanical Institute dons. When completed, this ‘Flora,’ which includes keys, descriptions, critical notes, and many range maps, will con- stitute a major contribution to our knowledge of the circum- polar arctic flora. Tolmatchev worked in the Museum from 1926 to 1930 (see also footnote on p. 13 7) During the first years of its existence the Botanical Museum did not have a publication outlet of its own, and the contribu- tions of its staff were published in several journals of the Acad- emy of Sciences, e.g., the “Mémoires.” Bongard’s paper on the Mertens collections from Sitka was published as a memoire of the Academy in 1833 (p. 32). In 1844, at the instigation of Meyer the Museum undertook to publish the serial Beitrage zur Pflanzenkunde des Russichen Reiches, which continued through 11 volumes until 1859, when it was discontinued after the reorganization of the Academy’s “‘Memoires’’ series. It was one of the first Russian botanical journals and carried important contributions by Ruprecht, Meyer, I. G. Borszczov, and other botanists of the times in St. Petersburg. The char- acter and pulse of research in the Museum during that period can be gauged fairly well from the contents of this journal. The major papers were local and regional floras representing significant pioneer efforts toward describing the complete flora of Russia. After 1871, Museum contributions were some- times published in the Imperial Botanic Garden’s new periodi- cal, Acta Horti Petropolitani. The first organized publication efforts at the Museum be- gan after Korshinsky became director in 1893. He initiated an ambitious project to write a ‘Flora of Imperial Russia.” Con- sidering the limited resources of the Museum, he undertook as the first stage the preparation of a ‘‘Flora of Siberia and the Far East,’ which seemed a feasible goal. The decision to begin with this part of Russia was related no doubt to the coming of Litvinow in 1898, who was already deep 1n research 277 RG a s a iy ‘ we Ge tution Courtesy Smithsonian Inst Tpunuyc A h (1778-1844), inius Tr first director of Botanical Museum, 1835-44. Carl B er eee eee ®. WU. Pynpext | Franz J. Ruprecht (1814- 1870), director of Botanical Museum 1855-70. | K. UA. Marcumosny Carl J. Maximowicz (1827- 1891), director of Botanical Museum 1871-91. Photographs from Baranov and Bobrov (8) | Cepreii U. Ropaunckuit Sergei I. Korshinsky (1861- 1900), director of Botanical Museum 1893-1900. From Baranov and Bobrov (8) Visax II. Bopozun Ivan P. Borodin (1847- 1930), director of Botanical Museum 1902-30. From Bot. Zhurn. 50(12). 1965 "(AoumneN “VW “N) aowkeH “VW “H “(reayory “y “y) dorxug ‘y ‘y ‘(Aezovyng ‘N *A.) doneadg “Fg ‘(oyUYoYsIPy ‘| ‘q) ONHAMMY “Ty ‘TT ‘(oyuayoaes] “"] “"q) OMHanvoyy “Ir “gq ‘(Aorewoy “T“\) sodewoy Trg “(HVA “MW A) xurdeg “y “g ‘(32Y “A U) arated *G ‘d “(WOspeN “VW “S) Hooley “V «I ‘([eY10A AA) renlog “@ “y ‘(oywouqn’] ‘N “A) ONHENMOOTTT “H “g ‘(Aljsioaoultyy “gq “q) yuttesonudy “gq “g “(ayxUox) “sD “W) dresHay (J “V ‘(OYUoYyOsIpoy “VY “q) OMHOHIem “VY “g ‘(2PM “VW “d) dorrey “yg “(AoueL 1 A) tourey Tf “gq ‘(unuog “A “V) HUNO® “gq “Y <7q574 07 1fay ‘Suspunig ‘(zqjoyong “A “4) Miroixdg “g ‘@m ‘(AoyruystueAIg "Ny ‘q) COMMHMMUBATT “A “Yf ‘(Aosqaoisoy "] “S) dataoLo0g “YO ‘(ypsng “W ‘N) wig ‘vy ‘H ‘(uIporog ‘q “I) auvodog TT ‘ ‘(1qe5 “[ ‘YM) MooT “BX ‘(AsyodArs0y “g ’S) GahMLOOY “TT “OY “(APsaopwuyy yA) wuNodereny “Mm ‘gq ‘(raSuIST “A °N) downy] ‘gq “H :2g8 02 1fa] “pagvas ALAINOG IVOINVLOG NOINQ)-1TY 40 SYASWAY\] YALAVAD 6961 “(ZI JOS ‘U4snqgZ ‘10g wo4y Botanical Museum 59 on Siberia and the Far East. Unfortunately, Korshinsky did not live to see any of this “Flora” appear. The work had to be carried on by Borodin and Litvinow after 1900. The first part of the Siberian ‘“‘Flora’’ came out in 1913, and by 1931 nine parts had appeared, covering five families of flowering plants (by N. A. and E. A. Busch) and the Filicales (by A. V. Fomin). These were the only parts ever to appear of both the “Flora of Siberia and the Far East” and the grandiose ‘Flora of Im- perial Russia.” At the time of the merger in 1931 the whole project was discontinued, and all further efforts were joined in the new project of the Botanical Institute to write Flora SSSR (p. 136). The staff and other resources of the Botanical Mu- seum had proved inadequate for Korshinsky’s imaginative undertaking and had not succeeded in completing even a tenth of the Siberian ‘‘Flora.”” Complicating the Museum project, by depleting the already limited supply of botanical scholars in Russia, was the parallel flora project of B. A. Fed- tschenko and A. F. Flerow at the Botanic Garden. They were marshalling the Garden’s forces to write a ‘‘Flora of Asiatic Russia,” and 15 fascicles of this ‘‘Flora,’’ under the author- ship of Brotherus, Kozo-Poljansky, Turkevicz, Roshevitz, Nekrassova, and Popov, came out between 1918 and 1931, covering perhaps 10 percent of the plants. Lebedev (in 8, p. 287) cites this Museum-Garden duplication as a prime exam- ple of the poor scientific planning in Tsarist Russia. Bobrov (9) gives a concise account of the most important floristic researches undertaken late in the last century and early in the present century. Korshinsky was responsible also for initiating the new Mu- seum journal Travaux de Musée Botanique de Academie des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, although actual publication did not begin until 1902, 2 years after his death. It continued through 25 volumes by 1932, when it was discontinued, and 60 Komarov Botanical Institute meanwhile underwent several minor name changes, corre- sponding to Museum name changes. It was really the successor of the earlier Beitrage. Many valuable papers and monographs on floristics, systematics, and geobotany appeared in the Tra- vaux during its 30-year history. Two early papers of special note were Litvinow’s “Bibliography of the Siberian Flora” (1904) and Borodin’s ‘‘Collectors and Collections of the Si- berian Flora” (1908). These papers were prepared as a part of the preliminary work on the ‘Flora of Siberia and the Far East.” Originally, Korshinsky envisioned that the larger Rus- sian flora project would provide a whole series of reference works to accompany the actual “‘Flora’”’ itself. One of the most valuable “publication” efforts initiated by Korshinsky was the documented exsiccatae distribution of Rus- sian plants begun in 1898 under the Latin title Schedae ad Herbarium Florae Rossicae and continued at irregular inter- vals down to the present time (8, p. 288; see also my p. 168). The documented labels that accompanied the specimens were also printed in booklet form and were arranged numeri- cally by species numbers. Each fascicle of exsiccatae con- sisted of 5O species, and 5O sets of each fascicle were distributed to leading foreign and domestic herbaria. This meant that for every fascicle distributed, a total of 2500 herbarium specimens or sheets were sent out. Thus, the first distribution, which was published as Booklet No. 1 and was comprised of four fasci- cles and species 1-200, totaled 10,000 specimens. This was primarily the work of Litvinow who carried the chief re- sponsibility for the exsiccatae series until his retirement, after which the distributions lapsed for 10 years (1922-32). From 1900 to 1922, he sent out 2600 species (Nos. 201-2800), representing booklets 2-8, fascicles 5-55, and a total of 130,000 specimens! During the nearly 100 years (1835-1931) of its inde- Botanical Museum 61 pendent existence the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences had the following succession of directors: C. B. Trin- ism (83544), GC. AL (Meyer (1844-559 Fs J Ruprecht (1855-70), C. J. Maximowicz (1871-91), S. I. Korshinsky (1893-1900),??, M. S. Voronin (1900-02), I. P. Borodin (1902-30), and V. L. Komarov (1930-31). The most striking feature of the director’s post during all those years is that with only two exceptions the incumbents occupied it for life once they were appointed. Voronin was only a temporary director, and Komarov’s term was inter- rupted by the merger in 1931. There was no compulsory retirement age, obviously, and there seems cause to believe that the work of the Museum was stifled more than once dur- ing its history by an aging director. The Museum hierarchy was very strong and largely based on seniority, and the influ- ence of the most elite academicians was considerable. Even today the rigid seniority hierarchy at the Komarov Institute probably tends to stifle some research initiative and responsi- bility at the lower levels, but this feature is not unusual for a bureaucracy anywhere. There is a 2-year gap between the directorships of Maximowicz and Korshinsky which is not accounted for. CHAPTER > Botanic Garden of the cAcademy of Sciences 1735-1812 R ussia’s Imperial Academy of Sciences had barely been founded when (1726) the first agitation began for the Academy to have its own botanic garden. In 173573 this agitation culminated in the formation of a botanic garden on Vassilevsky Island, lying between the Big and Little Neva branches southwest of Aptekarsky Island. It was developed from a private garden on the island, acquired by the Academy, and functioned for 77 years until a complex of circumstances, partly obscure, forced its closing in 1812. Sometime after 1800 the Botanic Garden of the Academy was moved off the island to another location in the city. In the mid-1 8th century there were upward to 600 species of plants under culture in the Garden, and during the final years of the Garden more *2The exact date of founding seems to be a matter of disagreement. Lebedev, in his official chronology (2, 8), gave the year 1733, but other authoritative sources (3; Baranov in 8, p. 17) indicate 1735. 63 64 Komarov Botanical Institute than 2000 species were being cultured. It was at the Garden where Mikhail V. Lomonosov (1711-65), the renowned 1 8th- century Russian poet-scientist, was given his first living quar- ters after returning from abroad (1741), and here the first chemistry laboratory in Russia was constructed for Lomono- sov in 1748. Academician Johann Amman (1707-41) was the first director, and he held this post until his death (1735-41). He was succeeded by Siegesbeck who at the time was directing Meditzinsky Sad on Aptekarsky Island (see p. 26). J. G. Siegesbeck headed the Academy’s Garden from 1741 to 1747 when, primarily because of his cantankerous nature, he was relieved of his post; he returned to his native Germany, where he died in 1755 (see footnote on p. 27). For less than a year (during 1747) the elder Johann Gmelin (1709-55), who was widely known for his studies of Siberian plants and had been elected to the Academy in 1731, served as director. He was soon followed by his former student assistant, the noted Kamtchatkan explorer Academician S. P. Krasheninnikov (1711-55). Krasheninnikov had accompanied Captain Bering on the Second Kamtchatkan Expedition (1732-43) as Gmel- in’s personal representative (see also discussion on p. 31). As a result of this work he published his classic, widely translated “Description of the Land of Kamtchatka” (1755, 2 vols.). For some reason his directorship lasted only 2 years (1747-49). Baranov (8, p. 18) ranks him as the first native Russian bot- tanist. Apparently he was a scholar of great promise, but he died prematurely at the age of 43. The directorship of the Academy’s Garden changed hands frequently during the next years, and the record is confusing. All the interim directors had short terms. Then in 1774, I. I. Lepechin (1740-1802), an academician and one of the most noted Russian botanists of the time, became director; he man- Botanic Garden of the Academy of Sciences 65 aged the Garden for 28 years, until his death. Following him for brief periods before the Garden closed were I. J. Rudolph (1754-1809), who directed the Garden from 1804 to 1809, and T. A. Smelowsky, who directed the Garden in its final years (1809-1812). Thus, throughout much of the 1 8th century and the earliest years of the 19th, St. Petersburg had in effect three botanical institutions. Under the management of the Imperial Acade- my of Sciences were the “Botanic Garden” on Vassilevsky Island and the botanical collections of the Kunstkammer, later reorganized into the “‘Botanical Museum”; and under the direction of the Government was the tsars’ ‘“‘Medicinal Gar- den,” later reorganized into the “Imperial Botanic Garden,” located on Aptekarsky Island. After 1812 and the closing of the Garden of Vassilevsky Island, the Academy did not have its own botanic garden again until 1930, when the Principal (formerly Imperial) Botanic Garden of the USSR was trans- ferred to the jurisdiction of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (see footnote on p. 40). (3,8) We gee re © i Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Herbarium-Library Building, dedicated in 1913. Below, Scene on grounds of | Botanical Institute. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Reading room of library. CHAPTER 6 Komarov Botanical Institute 1931-1966 ch. April 1931 at a regular session of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, held in Leningrad, the decision to end the 100-year parallel existence of the Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum was taken. Not only were both institutions located in the same city, but by now they were also both units of the Academy of Sciences (see Introduction, p. 23). Therefore, the time was ripe for merger, and this session of the Academy passed a resolution declaring that the two institu- tions be united into a single organization known as the “‘Bot- anical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.” On the first day of October of that same year the separate status of the Garden and Museum was legally ended, but the actual merger was not physically begun until January 1932, and lasted about 5 months. Eight years later, on May 4, 1940, the Botanical Institute was named in honor of V. L. Komarov, who was then its oldest and most distinguished botanist and scholar and who was also president of the Academy of Sciences. The name now became the “‘Botanical Institute in the Name 67 68 Komarov Botanical Institute of V. L. Komarov of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.””?4 In the English language this name is more appropriately rendered the ‘“‘Komarov Botanical Institute.’ (2, 8; cf. espe- cially Schischkin im 8, who gives date of renaming as 1939) The merger was not exactly a spontaneous action of the respective administrators at the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum. There were larger factors involving the whole of Soviet science, which are discussed in a later section (see jo, 17S). The buildings and grounds of the Botanic Garden on Ap- tekarsky Island became the home of the new Botanical Insti- tute, and the resources and staff of the Botanical Museum were transferred there. The Museum’s herbarium and library were intercalated into the existing herbarium and library of the Garden, housed in the four-story Herbarium-Library Building that had been dedicated in 1913 when the 200th anniver- sary > of the Imperial Botanic Garden was celebrated. Non- essential duplicate volumes and serials in the Museum’s library were turned over to the main library of the Academy in Leningrad, and after World War II they were transferred to the library of the ‘Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR,” now located in Moscow. The newly combined Museum- Garden library contained several hundred thousand pieces of botanical literature—it was already second to none among botanical libraries in the Soviet Union. At a later time the Institute’s library was integrated into the library system of the Academy of Sciences as a botanical branch of the Central Library. The library was housed on the first floor of the 24Borannueckuit uuctutyt um. B. J. Komapopa Akagemuu nayk CCCP. 2>The 200th anniversary was based on a founding date of 1713, but the 250th anniversary, celebrated in 1964, was based on the date 1714. In both cases the date of founding is traced to Peter the Great and not to the major reorganization coincident with Fischer’s arrival in 1823, which date is given in official chronologies (2,8) as the founding date of the Imperial Botanic Garden. The Institute: Original Staff and Resources 69 Herbarium-Library Building, and the herbarium occupied the upper three floors. Today the library and herbarrum of the Institute are still housed in this building, which by now is becoming crowded and outmoded. The new Botanical Institute was comprised of a series of “departments,” the chief of which was the “Department of Systematics and Geography of Vascular Plants,” under the direction of V. L. Komarov.?° At first this department con- sisted of little more than the combined Garden-Museum vas- cular herbarium, but today it includes several other important laboratories, discussed later. The same geographic organization that had been used in the Garden’s herbarium since the Revolution (see list of divisions, p. 39) was retained for the new herbarium of the Institute, and this organization 1s basically unchanged even now. Besides Komarov’s depart- ment, the following other departments were organized within the Institute: (1) Department of Cryptogamic Plants (Chief, V. P. Savicz), (2) Department of Geobotany (Chief, N. I. Kuznetsov), (3) Department of Experimental Botany (Chief, V. N. Lubimenko), (4) Department of Living Plants (..e., Botanic Garden; Chief, A. P. Iljinsky), (5) Public Museum (Chief, I. V. Palibin), and (6) Library. ORIGINAL STAFF AND RESOURCES The “‘charter”’ staff was comprised of more than 250 em- ployees including both the scientific and laboring forces. Prior to the merger the Museum and Garden had long represented the two largest botanical institutions in the Soviet Union, and *6The official name of this department has varied considerably with the translation. Until recently, the Russians themselves have usually translated the name as given above, but now they are starting to call it simply the Department of Vascular (or Higher) Plants. For convenience, I have used this shorter title in most contexts in this paper (cf. also footnote 41 on p. 121). 70 Komarov Botanical Institute their fusion immediately created the leading center for botani- cal research in the whole country, which it has remained to the present time. Concentrated in the Institute at that time—as indeed ever since—was the largest and most important botani- cal staff of the USSR, which included many distinguished scholars. Some of the more outstanding members of the com- bined scientific staff right after the merger were (3): V. A. Brilliant (1888-1954), E. A. Busch (1886-1960), N. A. Busch (1869-1941), A. N. Danilov (1879-1942), V. A. Dub- jansky (1877-1962), A. A. Elenkin (1873-1 942), B. A. Fedt- schenko (1872-1947), B. N. Gorodkov (1890-1953), A. P. I}jinsky (1888-1945), B. L. Isatchenko (1871-1948), S. V. Juzepcezuk (1893-1959), B. N. Klopotov (1882-1942), V. L. Komarov (1869-1945), I. M. Krasheninnikov (1884-1947), V. I. Kreczetovicz (1901-1942), N. I. Kuznetsov (1864- 1932), V.N. Lubimenko (1873-1937), V. P. Maleev (1894— 1941), N. N. Monteverde (1885-1952), G. A. Nadson (1867-1942), I. A. Ol (1884-1943), I. V. Palibins@8725, 1949), R. U. Roshevitz (1882-1949), B. K. Schischkin (1886-1963), N. V. Shipchinsky (1886-1955), and WeG Tranzschel (1868-1942). Among the eminent botanists of the original staff who are still living and for the most part active at the Institute even though in many cases retired are: A. G. Bekriasheva-Borisova (1903- ), -E. G. Bobrov (1902— ), A. S. Bondarzev (1877—. ), .M. M. ITijin, (1889—. ), Oo Ey eKnonnne, Neustrueva, V. L. Nekrassova (1881-— ), A. A. Nikitin, T. L. Nikolayeva (1902— ), A. I. Pojarkova, K. A. Rassadina (1903-_), V. P. Savicz (1885-__), L. I. Savicz-Lubitskaya (1886-_ ), and S. J. Sokolov. From its inception the Institute was organized to embrace all branches of plant science, both theoretical and applied, and new lines of research have been added steadily through The Institute: Original Staff and Resources 71 the years. For example, in 1952 P. A. Yakimov’s Laboratory of Lower Plant Biochemistry, conducting research on anti- biotics, was transferred from Leningrad State University to the Institute, and that same year a Department of Paleobotany, including palynology, was founded under the leadership of A.N. Krishtofovich (see p. 105). During the early years, in particular, the Institute dis- tinguished itself chiefly in the areas of systematics, floristics, and geobotany. This is evident from the roster of specialists above, most of whom are known for their contributions in these areas. After the merger, the combined vascular and non- vascular herbaria of the Garden and Museum totaled about 5 million specimens (Schischkin im 8, p. 87). This fairly enor- mous herbarium and its staff formed the backbone of the Institute, as already indicated, and the herbarium continued to be the primary locus of activity during the 1930s. Although the Komarov Herbarium has never been spoken of in these terms, from the outset it has constituted in reality the ‘‘Nation- al Herbarium” of the Soviet Union, just as in earlier years the separate herbaria of the Garden and Museum served to- gether in this role. Thus, from its very beginning the Botanical Institute has continued to hold within its structure the single largest research force of plant taxonomists in the entire Soviet Union. Among the important resources contributed to the Institute by the former Botanic Garden, in addition to its enormous library and herbarium, were its large arboretum-park, out- door nurseries, and greenhouses with their wealth of living plant collections. By 1931 the Garden occupied more than 22 hectares (about 55 acres) on Aptekarsky Island and possessed a series of more than two dozen greenhouses and conservatories including one very large “Palm Conservatory” and the widely known “Victoria Conservatory,” where Victoria amazonica, 72 Komarov Botanical Institute V. cruciana, and other unique tropical aquatic species were be- ing cultured. The greenhouses were arranged in a quadrangle that covered about 1 hectare (about 2.5 acres). Some 15,000 tropical and subtropical plants, including a rich collection of tree ferns, cycads, and palms, could be found in the green- houses. In the early part of the 19th century (1824; cf. 11) the eastern part of the Garden’s grounds was laid out as a formal park, and this part of the park has remained unchanged to the present time; trees planted then are still living. This park constituted an arboretum which, coupled with other outdoor nursery gardens, provided the Department of Living Plants of the new Institute with experimental test plots for the intro- duction and acclimatization of exotic species. Perhaps 500 species of woody plants and several thousand species of herba- ceous perennials and annuals could be found among the out- door plantings of the Garden during a summer season at that time. (3, 7, Sokolov 77 8, 11, 12) The museum department of the newly created Institute contained about 60,000 specimens: fruits and seeds (32,000), woods (10,000), plant products (12,000), fossil plants (4000), and miscellaneous objects (13; see also pp. 98, 118). DIRECTORSHIP B.A. Keller Academician Boris A. Keller (1874-1945), an eminent geobotanist, was elected the first director of the newly created Botanical Institute in 1931. At least during his first years as director, Keller led with vigor and initiated or facilitated im- portant new programs, including the undertaking of Flora SSSR. He also continued active research. Sources disagree on the exact duration of his directorship. According to Lebedev et al. (2, p. 93), Keller was “relieved” The Institute: Directorship 73 of his post on March 15, 1938, and B. K. Schischkin was ap- pointed director on June 1, 1939, with J. D. Zinserling and E. G. Bobrov filling in as interim directors. However, accord- ing to the present director, Prof. Aleksandr A. Fedorov, Keller was reassigned in 1936 to the directorship of the Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR in Moscow, although he did not actually move from Leningrad to Moscow until 1938; Zinser- ling, and then, for several months, Bobrov, served as acting director in the years 1936-38; finally, in 1938 Schischkin was named permanent director (correspondence, 1966). Bobrov also places the beginning of Schischkin’s directorship in 1938 (see below). B. K. Schischkin Boris K. Schischkin (1886-1963) became the second per- manent director of the Botanical Institute. Concerning the year he assumed this post, Bobrov (14) makes the following statement in his short biography of Schischkin: In 1938 at the general Assembly of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR B. K. Schischkin was elected director of the Botanical Institute. He occupied this post for eleven years [unul 1949] dur- ing what was probably the most difficult period in the history of the Institute. Whether Schischkin’s administration began in 1938 or 1939, Bobrov’s words about the difficult period that followed are an understatement. Assuming office during the height of Stalin’s great purge, Schischkin carried the double burden of all public figures in the Soviet Union at that ttme—that of proving not only their own patriotism but also of proving the deep devotion of their organizations to the regime’s nationalistic goals. Professor Schischkin already was a scholar of unimpeachable qualifica- tions and a quiet but effective leader-by-example who engen- 74 Komarov Botanical Institute dered great confidence on the part of his subordinates and colleagues as well as his superiors. Thus he was a natural choice for this difficult time, and it doubtless was no accident that a man of his qualifications was chosen for director. He was not an ‘‘ambitious’”’ man in the bad sense of the word, or a man given to political intrigues. On the top of this domestic upheaval, Schischkin was soon faced with the outbreak of World War II and all the consequences it brought upon the Institute (see p. 100). Altogether, his directorship was hardly a tranquil one. When Schischkin died on May 1, 1963, after a protracted illness, his renown as a plant taxonomist was worldwide, and he was especially well known for his numerous floristic re- searches and his systematic studies of the families Caryophyl- laceae and Umbelliferae. Outside the Soviet Union he was perhaps the one best known Russian botanist of recent years, and he 1s surely to be ranked among the most distinguished Soviet botanists of the modern period. He was a scholarly botanist in the best tradition, whose place in the history of botany 1s well secured. It is appropriate, therefore, that a brief biography of him be given here in this historical sketch of the Komarov Institute. Schischkin (14) was born in 1886 in a provincial region of western Siberia and graduated from Tomsk University in 1911. Here, in Siberia’s oldest university, he came under the influ- ence of Prof. P. N. Krylov, the eminent student of Siberian plants, whose “Flora of Western Siberia” is still a classic among Russian regional floras. Highly regarded among Rus- sian botanists, it is in my own opinion still unequalled by other Soviet floristic works, including the monumental Flora SSSR, for its critical taxonomic and geographic detail. The plan for this work was laid out shortly after Schischkin joined the faculty of Tomsk University in 1925; but for Schischkin’s The Institute: Directorship WS persistent efforts this work would doubtless have never been completed. It was to constitute a revision of Krylov’s earlier “Flora of Altai Territory and Tomsk Province” (1901-14), but it was so thoroughly revised and geographically enlarged as to constitute in the end a wholly new work. The first volume appeared in 1927, the eleventh and final in 1949 (22 years). Krylov lived to see only the first 4 volumes appear; Schisch- kin, assisted by several other specialists, saw it to the finish, through all 11 volumes. Altogether, his Tomsk years were very active ones for studying and publishing on the flora of Western Siberia. Earlier (1915-17), while serving during World War I as a medical officer on the Turkish Front in Transcaucasia, Schischkin took up studies of the flora of Armenia and Turkish Armenia. These studies culminated years later in his ‘*Ma- terials of the Flora of Turkish Armenia,” the first part of which appeared in 1929. From 1918 to 1924 he worked as a botanist in the herbarium of the Georgian State Museum in Tbilisi (formerly Tiflis), publishing on the flora of the Caucasus. During this period he began his lifelong researches on Caryophyllaceae and Umbelliferae, later writing most of the treatments of these families for Flora SSSR. Schischkin left Tomsk University in 1931 to join the staff of the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. When the Museum and the Botanic Garden were merged shortly thereafter, he became a senior botanist in the united herbaria of the newly established Botanical Institute. During the rest of his life he served in the Institute in one capacity or another, and throughout these more than 30 years his active research was connected largely with the preparation of Flora SSSR (see p. 156). During his directorship (19 38- 49) the Laboratory of Paleobotany and the Laboratory of Anatomy and Morphology were established, and he carried 76 Komarov Botanical Institute the responsibility in the immediate postwar period for starting to rebuild the almost completely destroyed greenhouse com- plex. After Komarov’s death in 1945, Schischkin became the head of the Department of Systematics and Geography of Vascular Plants. Thus, to him passed the “mantle’’ of his revered predecessors in this century, B. A. Fedtschenko and V. L. Komarov, and the great distinction and responsibility of directing the largest group of plant taxonomists in the Soviet Union. In this capacity he edited all the department’s serials and many of its large floristic works, including Flora SSSR. Earlier (1938-45) he had served a term as editor of the jour- nal Sovetskaya Botanika. Since 1948 he had served on the editorial board of Botanichesky Zhurnal, successor to the other journal. During World War II (1943) Schischkin was ac- corded the high distinction of being elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. At the Institute Professor Schischkin advised many gradu- ate students over the years in the preparation of candidate’s and doctor’s dissertations, and after the war he resumed teaching again. From 1945 to 1958 he taught at Leningrad State University after a lapse in his active teaching career of almost 25 years since he left Tomsk University (1931). In his later years he participated in a number of national and inter- national conferences and committees, including the 8th Inter- national Botanical Congress in Paris (1954). For nearly 20 years he had been a vice president of the Botanical Society of the USSR, and at the time of his death he was serving as the Soviet representative on the Council of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. Schischkin’s death was a grave loss not only to Soviet bota- nists but to botanists the world over. Bobrov wrote (14, p. 276): He was wise, with extensive knowledge and experience in research- The Institute: Directorship 77 work. He was respected and loved by all who knew him, always ready to help anyone who sought his advice. At the Botanical Institute ... B. K. Schischkin successfully continued the traditional investigations of the flora of our country that made this oldest botanical Institution renowned throughout the world. All his colleagues regret that he did not survive until the 250th anniversary of the Institute. . . . V. FE. Kuprevicz In 1949, V. F. Kuprevicz (1897— _) succeeded Schisch- kin as director of the Institute; however, he served in this post only until 1952 because of his election as president of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelorussian Republic in 1951. Kuprevicz is a distinguished mycologist and phytopathologist, who worked with Tranzschel on rust fungi. Since Tranzschel’s death in World War II Kuprevicz has carried on Tranz- schel’s efforts to prepare a “Flora of the Rust Fungi of the WSSRe Mheltirst: part of this,;Flora, appeared im) 1195/7: Kuprevicz is especially interested in the theoretical question of a species concept among the fungi and has published a number of papers on this subject. He also has published on the physiology of diseased plants (8). Not much is recorded concerning his accomplishments as director. At present (1967) he is one of the Soviet Union’s most prominent botanists, editor-in-chief of Botanichesky Zhurnal, and a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. P. A. Baranov In 1952, Prof. Pavel A. Baranov (1892-1962)27 was named director of the Botanical Institute by the Soviet Acad- “The biographical information about Baranov is drawn largely from Vassilezenko’s obituary of him (15). 78 Komarov Botanical Institute emy of Sciences, and upon assuming this post he entered a new and final period in his already illustrious scientific career. Born in Moscow in 1892, he was trained at Moscow University in the morphology and anatomy of plants. His earliest researches concerned the embryology of the Orchidaceae. In 1920, Lenin signed the bill establishing Tashkent University, and Baranov was among a group of scientists asked to help organize the University. Altogether, he devoted nearly 25 years of his life to a study of Middle Asian plants in connection with his posi- tion at the University, where he founded a program in botany and later (1928) became full professor and head of the Faculty of Morphology and Anatomy. In 1936, he was named the first director of the newly founded Pamir Biological Station (Tadzhikistan Republic, Middle Asia) devoted to problems of high mountain agriculture, and the Pamir work remained close to his heart up to the time he died—long after he vacated this post. In 1940, he was named director of the Botanical Institute of the Uzbekistan Branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Three years later he was elected a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and following this event Baranov moved to the Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR in Moscow, where he became acting director. In 1949, he was asked by the Presidium of the Soviet Academy of Sciences to direct the work of its Moldavian Branch. These latter two posts were held simultaneously, and he continued to hold them even after being named director of the Komarov Botanical Institute in 1952. Although trained in morphology and anatomy, Baranov’s interests and researches were wide-ranging and often strong- ly oriented toward agriculture and the Soviet economy. Dur- ing his lifetime he published more than 200 scientific papers covering such diverse subjects as orchid embryology, viticul- ture, plant acclimatization, polyploidy, evolution of cultivated The Institute: Directorship 79 plants, and the history of botany. One of his most important works is the book entitled ““The History of Plant Embryol- ogy,’ published in 1955. His research specialty came closest to what might be termed “‘agricultural botany,’ but it would be hard to confine. While at the Principal Botanic Garden in Moscow he took a strong interest in the develop- ment of greenhouse collections especially from southern lati- tudes, and during his directorship in Leningrad he was affiliated with the staff of the Institute’s Botanic Garden, where his specialty was considered to be plant embryology (16). In Moscow he had organized a Laboratory of Morphol- ogy and Anatomy at the Botanic Garden. It is probably fair to say that his embryological, anatomical, and morphological researches were largely applied in nature and not directed primarily toward the development of theoretical science. Thus he is not known abroad for fundamental contributions to plant embryology, morphology, or anatomy. During his directorship at the Komarov Institute he devoted considerable attention to the work of floristics and systematics that was going on in the vascular and cryptogamic herbaria and became involved in a number of important field expeditions. Noteworthy in this respect were his expedition to tropical West Africa (1954, see below) and his expeditions to tropical China (1958) and Viet-Nam (1961-62), when he made a special effort to send back seeds and other propagules of tropical species for the greenhouse collections. Baranov, a capable leader and administrator, spent most of his life administering agricultural and scientific organizations for the Soviet Government, often under the auspices of the Soviet Academy of Sciences or one of its branches. Thus, perhaps his greatest contribution to science came in the area of science administration. During his later years, particularly, he served on many scientific committees and councils and 80 Komarov Botanical Institute attended numerous conferences in one capacity or another. Frequently his responsibilities took him abroad. He was part of a delegation of Soviet botanists to the 7th International Botanical Congress in Stockholm in 1950, led by V. N. Sukaczev, and to the 8th Congress in Paris in 1954, led by A. L. Kursanov, where he was a vice chairman of the Ethno- botany Section. In 1958 and 1961 he visited Peking at the invitation of the Academy of Sciences of ‘Red’? China, and in 1961 he also went to Italy. This was only the year before his death. After the Paris Congress he succeeded in having the canceled post-Congress excursion to tropical West Africa reinstated for his delegation, and they were led on an almost exclusively Russian, month-long tour of French Guinea and neighboring regions. A Swiss acquaintance of mine who also participated in this tour and learned to know some of the members of the Soviet delegation quite well came away much impressed by Professor Baranov, describing him as a wise and sincere man. Later, Baranov published an extensive account of this trip (“In Tropical Africa,” 1956). As director of the Komarov Botanical Institute, Baranov was faced with an outmoded patchwork of administrative structure that had gradually developed through the years to accommodate new disciplines and programs as they were added one by one. By now departments, laboratories, and ad boc program teams were all blended into such an intricate organizational labyrinth that lines of authority were confused, and the various administrative units no longer were receiving their proper representation with respect to their relative signif- icance in the total program of the Institute. Therefore, Bara- nov set complete administrative reorganization as a primary goal, which he achieved in 1960 only 2 years before his death and about 8 years after he became director. The 1960 reor- ganization was without doubt the single most important The Institute: Directorship 81 achievement of Baranov’s directorship. It is outlined briefly in a later section of this paper (see p. 119). Baranov died in May 1962 at the age of 70 after a pro- longed illness, having remained director of the Institute up to this time. Vassilczenko, in his tribute to him (15), described Baranov as a man of boundless energy, youthful agility and strength, inexhaustible scientific enthusiasm, and perennial optimism. Although one might have disagreed from time to time with his views, one could never have accused him of lack- ing scientific integrity or patriotism either to the cause of science or to his country, Vassilezenko said. During his life- time Baranov was awarded many honors and medals including the Order of Lenin and the Order of the Red Star. He became a member of the Communist Party in 1941. AL A. Fedorov Following the death of Baranov, Prof. Aleksandr A. Fédor- ov (1906— ), corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, was appointed director of the Institute, and continues to serve in this post today. Fédorov is a morphologist and economic botanist who has participated in the work of the Department of Plant Resources almost from its inception in 1934. Through the years he has been one of the department’s principal investigators and has led many important prospect- ing expeditions into western and central Asia, searching for plant raw materials. In 1959 he succeeded M. M. [lin as head of this department, and at present he ts also in charge of its Laboratory of Plant Resources, which deals with the botan- ical aspects of economic plants. Fédorov’s specialties include also the systematics of the Mimosaceae, teratology, and the terminology of descriptive morphology. Concerned with the subjectivity of botanical ter- 82 Komarov Botanical Institute minology in the Russian language, he with two of his col- leagues undertook to compile an authoritative, illustrated manual that would standardize usage and put Russian botani- cal terminology on a thoroughly scientific basis. In 1956, the first volume of this work, “An Atlas on Descriptive Morphol- ogy—The Leaf” by Al. A. Fedorov, M. E. Kirpicznikov, and Z. T. Artushenko, appeared; the second volume on the “Stem and Root” came out in 1962. Both volumes were edited by Director Baranov, who noted in the editor’s preface to volume 1 that this work is the first of its kind in the Russian language; altogether he promised three volumes, the third and last to cover the “Flower and Fruit.’ Each volume is divided into two parts. The first part gives definitions, diagrams, and Latin equivalents for the Russian terms, and the second part consists of illustrative photographs of actual plant materials, keyed to explanatory legends. To the foreign botanist who must deal with Russian botanical literature the most helpful features are the Russian-Latin and the Latin-Russian dictionaries at the back of each volume. These are indispensable for interpreting the descriptive text of a Russian “Flora” like Flora SSSR. The task of administering the multifaceted activities of the Komarov Botanical Institute today is a very demanding and complex one. During his tenure so far, Director Fedorov has attempted to continue the expansion of the Institute’s inter- national as well as national roles in botanical research, follow- ing the good example set by the former directors. at at at In summary, the directors of the Komarov Botanical Insti- tute since its creation in 1931 have been the following: B. A. Keller (1931-36), J. D. Zinserling and E. G. Bobrov (1936— 38, acting directors), B. K. Schischkin (1938509) 5 Vea Kuprevicz (1949-52), P. A. Baranov (1952-62), and Al. A. Fedorov (1962- _ ). Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Bopuc A. Kheasep Bopue hk. UWnm«n Boris A. Keller (1874-1945), geo- Boris K. Schischkin (1886-1963), botanist-ecologist, Director 1931- taxonomist, Director 1938-49. 36. B. ®. Rynpesuy Ilanea A. Bapanos V. F. Kuprevicz (1897- ), my- Pavel A. Baranov (1892-1962), cologist-phytopathologist, Di- embryologist and agricultural rector 1949-52. botanist, Director 1952-62. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Anexcanip A. Pexopos Aleksandr A. Fédorov (1906- ), morphologist and economic botanist, Director 1962- . The Institute: Departmental Activities 83 DEPARTMENTAL GROWTH AND ACTIVITIES The formation of the Botanical Institute in 1931 signaled the beginning of intensive new researches on a broad scale in botany, agriculture, and horticulture. From the outset, the In- stitute has carried on theoretical and applied researches side by side; however, it must be said that a high proportion of the research program, including much quasi-theoretical work, has been geared very closely to the needs of the Soviet economy and directed more toward rapid development of scientific technology than toward the pursuit of pure science. Like all Soviet institutions, the Institute has been called upon to parti- cipate in the Government’s long-term economic planning (‘Five-Year Plans’’), which has required the setting of long- term research goals. This requirement has led to a strong emphasis on carefully programed research (see ‘National Rioleme pays: 1y): The principal goals in planning have been to inventory the natural plant resources of the vast territory of the Soviet Union and to discover ways of utilizing these resources in agriculture and industry. As a result, botanical exploration and prospect- ing, involving numerous expeditions, have been a major pre- occupation of nearly all departments of the Institute since its founding but especially during the 1930s and 1940s. Thus, through the years the activities of the Institute have been very nationally oriented, and only in the postwar years has it been possible for botanists at the Institute to devote some of their energies to tropical exploration abroad. Altogether, the numerous research and development activi- ties of the Institute cover such a large scope that one cannot characterize them easily, and it would be impossible and point- less to catalog all these activities here. The Komarov Institute has no real counterpart among American institutions. Actual- 84 Komarov Botanical Institute ly it combines in one grand amalgam programs and functions that in the United States would be found in the Smithsonian Institution, the U. S. Geological Survey, the National Arbore- tum, and the Agricultural Research Service (latter two of the U. S. Department of Agriculture). Lebedev et al. (2, p. 41) summarize the whole gamut of activities by saying that the Institute is devoted to research on floras and vegetation and their history, development, utilization, restoration, and en- richment by introduction. This general task is being pursued in ‘four principal directions: 1) the flora of the U.S.S.R. and its utilization; 2) vegetational cover of the U.S.S.R.; 3) adaptation of plants to environment under conditions of in- troduction and acclimatization; 4) the evolution of the Plant Kingdom.” In the following pages I have attempted to give only a few highlights of departmental growth and activities through the years. Prewar Years (193 1-41) The story of the Komarov Institute is largely the story of its Department of Vascular (Higher) Plants, which, as already indicated, has always been the biggest and most important department of the Institute and has on the whole continued to make the most significant contributions to science. To be sure, some of the other departments have also made significant contributions, especially in recent years, and their relative significance in the Institute is steadily growing today; how- ever, the Department of Vascular Plants still overshadows all other divisions of the Institute at least internationally. The significance of this department stems from the fact that it presides over one of the oldest, largest, and most valuable herbaria in the world—certainly one of the two paramount The Institute: Departmental Activities 85 resources of the Institute, the other being its rich botanical library—and also from the fact that its botanists have consis- tently pursued a vigorous and scholarly investigation of the flora and vegetation of the USSR. Considering the enormous territory embraced by modern Soviet borders and the fact that it includes the lion’s share of the north temperate landmass, this makes the Leningrad output very critical in the world literature of systematic botany. One of V. L. Komarov’s first acts as head of the department was to mobilize his staff for the colossal task of preparing a multivolumed treatise on all the vascular plants of the USSR. This work was to be called Flora SSSR. The groundwork for it had been laid even before the merger was completed, and by late spring of 1932 the writing began. From this moment forward the story of the department was written by the prog- ress of this almost unthinkable project. During the prewar period the department mounted a large number of expedi- tions into all parts of the Soviet Union to collect the native flora and thereby the documentation for writing Flora SSSR. This collecting and writing occupied the energies of a majority of the staff. Nevertheless, other systematic-floristic researches, stimulated in large part by the Flora Project, did go forward at the same time, and during these years many revisions, monographs, and local floras also were published. Because of its signal contribution to botanical literature and its central role not only in the life of the department but of the entire Institute for the 30-year duration, the Flora Project is dis- cussed by itself in a special section (see p. 136). When the herbaria of the Principal Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum were merged into the new Department of Systematics and Geography of Vascular Plants (usually simplified to Department of Vascular Plants), the combined staff included Fedtschenko, Komarov, and Schischkin, three 86 Komarov Botanical Institute “heavyweights” of Russian taxonomy in this century. The former two, already advanced in age (60 and 63 years old, respectively) and widely recognized as “elder statesmen” of taxonomy, were nonetheless still very active and con- tinued vigorous programs during the 1930s and early 1940s. Schischkin, at 46, was only entering his prime. Schischkin came to the department from the former Museum, while Fedtschenko had been the chief botanist in the Garden’s her- barium. Academician Komarov’s principal activities had been at the Garden, although at the time of the merger he was serving as director of the Museum. After the merger, he be- came head of the department, and Fedtschenko and Schischkin became senior botanists. Fedtschenko carried on heavy editing responsibilities in the new department along with much writing and publication of his own, but he never became involved in administrative affairs as did his eminent, elder colleague, Komarov. Among his many publications during the 1930s should be mentioned his contributions to about a half-dozen volumes of Flora SSSR and his editorship of the 6th edition (1933), of P. F. Maevsky’s “Flora of Middle Russia” (1933).28 Fedtschenko died in 1947 and his last contribution to Flora SSSR was published posthumously in 1948. VLADIMIR L. KOMAROV Vladimir L. Komarov 2? is by all odds the most celebrated Russian botanist of the present century, and a brief digression 8Edition 1 by Maevsky, 1892. Ed. 2, edited by S. I. Korshinsky, 1895. Ed. 3, edited by B. A. Fedtschenko, 1902. Eds. 4, 5, edited by D. I. Litvinow, 1912, 1917. Ed. 6, edited by Fedtschenko, 1933. Ed. 7, edited by V. L. Komarov, 1940. Eds. 8, 9, edited by B. K. Schischkin, 1954, 1964. Latest edition is called “Flora of the Middle Zone of the European Part of the USSR.” °°Account of Komarov is based on references 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20. The Institute: Departmental Activities 87 to consider his contributions is in order here. (His taxonomic philosophy is discussed at some length in the section on Flora SSSR, p. 149.) Born in 1869, he died in December 1945 at the advanced age of 76 after a long, serious illness. At the time of his death he was president of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. He was also president of the All-Union Botani- cal Society and editor-in-chief of Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR (“Botanical Journal of the USSR’), both of which he helped to found (pp. 53 and 169). He had served on the journal’s editorial board since the founding in 1916. Thus, Academi- cian Komarov had been accorded not only the highest honors and responsibilities in Soviet botany but also in all Soviet science. He had truly reached the pinnacle of scientific schol- arship and public esteem in Soviet society. As a tribute in his 75th year, the associate editors dedicated an issue of Botani- chesky Zhurnal SSSR (1944, No. 5) to him, lauding him as an “‘outstanding botanist-public servant” and concluding their brief resumé of his years of service with these words (17, p. 150): Let us wish him health, strength, and good spirit from the bot- tom of the heart for leadership through the long years of Soviet science, and botany in particular, of the great Stalin epoch. (Trans- lation mine.) Komarov, who had studied under that “‘father” and patron saint of Russian botany, Beketov, began his scientific activities around 1892, and thus his career spanned the closing years of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. His early years were spent at the Imperial Botanic Garden where in 1902 he became the head of the Department of Living Plants after the departure of V. I. Lipsky, and by 1917 he was already deputy director of the Garden under Isatchenko. These were productive years when he carried out a series of very impor- tant expeditions and published such pioneer works as his 3- 88 Komarov Botanical Institute volume ‘‘Flora of Manchuria” (1901-07) and ‘‘Introduction to the Floras of Mongolia and China’”’ (1908-09), which was his doctoral dissertation. At the beginning of the century he was the principal investigator of Central Asian plants at the Garden. Among his many other papers and monographs published at this time was a teaching syllabus on medicinal plants (1915). In 1920, Komarov was elected to the Academy of Sciences to fill the chair of plant systematics, vacant since the death of Korshinsky (1900). It was during this period that he published his “Flora of Kamtchatka,” and in 1930 he succeeded Borodin as director of the Botanical Museum, serv- ing for the brief interim before the merger (see pp. 40, 50). By the time of the merger Komarov’s most productive years as a research scientist were behind him, and he soon entered a new phase in his life, as editor, organizer, science administrator and propagandist, and public servant. In his new post as head of the Department of Vascular Plants he organized the Flora SSSR Project, which, as editor-in-chief, he dominated until his death, although he himself was not a major contributor. The brunt of the work of organizing and managing the Project fell on B. K. Schischkin and E. G. Bobrov almost from the start (see special section on Flora, p. 137). Komarov’s responsi- bilities in the Academy began to take him to Moscow as early as 1934, when the headquarters of the Academy of Sciences were transferred to Moscow (20), and kept him there most of the rest of his years. However, he maintained an apartment in Leningrad on the Institute grounds until 1941 and used to come to the Institute often (Al. Fédorov, correspondence 1966). In 1936, he became president of the Academy. For all practical purposes, therefore, the responsibility for running the Department of Vascular Plants fell on Schischkin almost from the outset of Komarov’s chairmanship, although Komarov held onto the official title until his death, undoubted- The Institute: Departmental Activities 89 ly because of the rigid hierarchy of the Academy which placed Komarov, as an academician, above Schischkin who only later was taken into the Academy. Thus, while Komarov, in his capacity as editor and by authority of his several official positions in the Institute and Academy, continued throughout his life to exert an enormous philosophical and ideological influence upon the research ac- tivities of the Institute and more particularly the Department of Vascular Plants, his role in the everyday scientific activity of the Institute was slight. This fact does not downgrade his contribution to the Botanical Institute, to Soviet botany, or to botany everywhere, but it does emphasize the fact that many other diligent scholars at the Institute carried the main burden of much of the taxonomic and other research for which Komarov carried the banner. Yet to Komarov’s everlasting credit, for his vision and genius as organizer and guiding force, must go the success of the now completed Flora SSSR. Though his role in later years, especially after he became pres- ident of the Academy, was more like that of a patron than a project leader and his authorship and editorship were by times more spiritual than literal, Komarov will doubtless always be remembered as father and author of this monumental work. As a botanical scholar, Komarov specialized chiefly in the taxonomy and geography of vascular plants especially of Cen- tral and Eastern Asia, but he also was interested in many other branches of botany and published on many topics. In the course of his scientific career, first at the Botanic Garden, then also at the Botanical Museum, and finally in the Botanical Institute, he took some part in the activities of virtually every depart- ment of these institutions. He had a lifelong interest in theoret- ical questions, as seen already in his introduction to the ‘Flora of Manchuria” (1901), but he turned much more attention to these matters in his later years. His views were summed up 90 Komarov Botanical Institute in 1940 in a paper entitled, ‘““The Concept of Species in Plants,’’ which is often quoted in Russian sources and brought him the Stalin Prize. Botanical historian Lipschitz (19) stresses Komarov’s concept and extensive use of the category of “series” in plant taxonomy. Komarov 1s also credited generally by Russian botanists as having introduced and popularized in their taxonomic research the concept of the geographic race as the real species unit (17). To many botanists, Russian as well as foreign, however, Komarov was a taxonomic “‘splitter” (cf. section on “Flora SSSR,” p. 149, for further discussion of his species concept). A selection of Komarov’s voluminous scien- tific writings was published after his death, and together they give one a portrait of the scientist and the man (Opera Se- lecta, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad-Moscow. 12 vols. 1945-58. In Russian). Like other Institute personnel, Komarov took an active leadership role in paramilitary botanical activities during World War II and subsequently was decorated by Stalin, along with coworkers, for his wartime efforts as chairman of the ‘‘Commission on Mobilization of Resources of the Urals, Siberia, and Kazakhstan.”’ Komarov was also a professor and taught for many years at Leningrad State University and other institutions of higher learning in the city. At the Botanical Institute he advised many graduate students, and from this reservoir of taxonomists came the majority as well as the most active of the authors who worked on Flora SSSR. Thus, besides his own personal philosophy of taxonomy which he injected into his writing and editing, his greatest contribution to the Flora Project was a cadre of students trained in his own methods. Throughout his life he played a large role in the dissemination of botanical knowledge both on the popular and scholarly levels. During his early years at the Principal Botanic Garden, where he The Institute: Departmental Activities 9] managed the greenhouse-arboretum complex (Department of Living Plants) from 1917 to 1931, he took a special interest in public education and initiated the first organized tours through the park and greenhouses about 1918. Up until the time of the Revolution, V. I. Lipsky, the noted historian of the Imperial Botanic Garden, had been in charge of the Depart- ment of Living Plants (7, Sokolov in 8, 9). at at at Returning to the work of the department, we should take note of several other developments and activities during the prewar period. Deserving special mention among the numer- ous researches under way that culminated in important publi- cations are the researches of the well-known Gramineae specialists, R. U. Roshevitz and S. A. Nevsky, whose work continued the long tradition in this specialty started in the early 19th century by Trinius; the long-term experimental studies of S. V. Juzepczuk on Alchemilla and other genera, being carried out since the 1920s in the greenhouse and out- door plot facilities first set aside for experimental taxonomy by Komarov in 1918 while he was in charge of the Department of Living Plants at the Principal Botanic Garden; and the large-scale experimental taxonomic work of I. T. Vassilczenko on the seedlings of plants, especially monocotyledons (Schisch- kin im 8). In 1937, L. A. Kuprianova began work in the department on pollen morphology and, according to Schisch- kin (8), she soon emerged as the leading palynologist in the whole Soviet Union. Her well-known work “Morphology of the Pollen of Monocotyledonous Plants,” was published in 1948. The Department of Cryptogamic Plants embraced the algae, fungi, lichens, and bryophytes, but excluded ferns and bacteria. The ferns were covered by the Department of Vascu- lar Plants, and the bacteria were excluded as belonging to the 92 Komarov Botanical Institute province of microbiology. The department was placed under the direction of lichenologist V. P. Savicz (1885— ) who remained its head almost to the present time. The crypto- gamic specialists could not yet foresee the preparation of a cryptogamic work analagous in scope to Flora SSSR, because of the great need for fundamental revisions and monographs. Consequently, the department set as its main task the prepara- tion of such basic works which could point the way toward a “Cryptogamic Flora of the USSR.” Noteworthy in this con- nection are several monographs published by outstanding members of the staff at this ttme. A. A. Elenkin published two volumes of his ambitious “‘Cyanophyta of the USSR” (1936, 1938); L. I. Savicz-Lubitskaya published her “Sphagnum Mosses of the European Part of the USSR” (1936); and V. G. Tranzschel published the “Rust Fungi of the USSR” (1939). At 81, the prolific bryologist Savicz-Lubitskaya con- tinues to publish papers today. During the prewar period a certain amount of physiological and genetical research on low- er plants was begun (2, Savicz in 8). The Department of Geobotany was first organized in 1922 at the Principal Botanic Garden by N. I. Kuznetsov (1864— 1932) who remained head of this department until his death in 1932, shortly after the formation of the Botanical Institute. He was succeeded for a brief period by V. N. Sukaczev (1880- 1967), and in 1934 J. D. Zinserling became head, serving until 1938; E. M. Lavrenko (1900—_ ) took over in 1938 and served until very recently (3; 8, p. 144). Kuznetsov be- came a leading figure of this century among Russian geo- botanists, and his distinguished successors likewise have made important contributions to this discipline. Sukaczev was elected to the Academy in 1943 (20). Although the science of geobotany was formally recognized at the Garden only in 1922, its roots go far back in St. Petersburg botany, and The Institute: Departmental Activities 93 through the years, thanks especially to the establishment of the Botanical Institute, it has become one of the most highly de- veloped botanical sciences in the Soviet Union. In fact, it is fair to say that geobotany is one science in which the Soviets hold a measure of world leadership today. “Geobotany”” is a European term that has never been widely used in American botanical circles, and it is difficult to define precisely with respect to our own traditional botani- cal disciplines. Actually geobotany hardly qualifies as a single well-circumscribed discipline. Rather, it can embrace some or all aspects of phytogeography, phytosociology, ecology, paleo- botany, agronomy, geology, botanical cartography, plant re- source exploration and prospecting (e.g., “biogeochemical” prospecting), land reclamation and utilization, and the history of vegetation. In the Russian context, where the term has long been used and, presumably, precisely understood, geobotany refers to the general study of vegetation—uits origin, develop- ment, distribution, and utilization (especially )—in contrast to the study of plants and floras, which falls into the province of taxonomy and floristics. Ecology, which in the American sense usually includes community ecology (phytosociology), in the Russian sense usually refers to autecology or physio- logical and experimental ecology, excluding phytosociology (called phytocoenology in most Russian sources) which then falls into geobotany. Great stress has been laid upon the economic benefits of geobotanical research by the Institute, and its numerous geo- botanical expeditions and programs have all had strong prac- tical overtones. In this connection, Lebedev et al. write: The work of the Department of Geobotany is closely connected with the requirements of our national economy. Almost all the basic research work of this Department is planned in accordance with the tasks, set by the Government. (2, pp. 31-32) 94 Komarov Botanical Institute Much of the extensive geobotanical work of the Institute has been little more than the mechanical surveying and mapping of plant resources, and the theoretical research content has not always been especially high. The Department of Plant Re- sources also has carried out much survey work, and often the programs of these two departments have overlapped rather strongly so that it is not easy, at least for the outsider, to draw a sharp line between their respective roles in the total work of the Institute. It should also be noted here that many of the Institute’s geobotanical expeditions through the years have been financed partly by the Academy’s “Council for the In- vestigation of Natural Resources”’ (2). This very practical orientation has been characteristic of all Soviet geobotanical research, and the big dividend today is the virtual world leadership that the Soviet Union holds in the science and technology of biogeochemical prospecting—1.e., prospecting for underground mineral and chemical deposits by means of plant indicators—and botanical cartography. Through the years, Soviet geobotanists have produced a fine series of geobotanical maps of various types, covering the USSR and many of its regions. Even today the United States has no real equivalents for many of these maps or a compar- able program in biogeochemical exploration or botanical cartography, although the U. S. Geological Survey has been active to some degree in both areas. The Komarov Botanical Institute has made very significant contributions toward the total Soviet program. Already in 1937, it had prepared a small-scale (1:15,000,000) geobotanical map under the su- pervision of A. P. Iljinsky for the Soviet ““World Atlas,” en- titled, ““Map of the Vegetation of the USSR.” A large-scale edition of this map (1:5,000,000) was issued in 1939 in four sheets under the editorship of Lavrenko. In 1940 the Govern- ment charged the Department of Geobotany with the task of The Institute: Departmental Activities 95 dividing the entire Soviet Union into geobotanical sectors, but this task was not completed until after the war. During the 1930s several methodological works were published, and the manual “Vegetation of the USSR” was started. Two volumes appeared (1938, 1940) but the manual was never completed @); In addition to the botanists of the department whose names have already been mentioned, B. N. Gorodkov calls for special noting. He was an eminent arctic geobotanist and explorer at the Botanical Museum before the merger, and at the Institute he continued his work and took a big part in helping to develop a strong tradition in arctic botany. The Department of Experimental Botany (2) carried out work on the physiology of photosynthesis and photoperiodism aimed particularly at the general question of plant adaptation to light. Other questions under investigation in the prewar years were the physiology of drought resistance, ecological anatomy, and the role of trace elements. V. N. Lubimenko (1873-1937), head, was succeeded at his death ly Wa aN. Brilliant (1888-1954) who reorganized the department in 1938, renaming it the Department of Ecology and Physiol- ogy. The work of this department was agriculturally oriented, and altogether its contributions to theoretical botany during the 1930s were not particularly significant. From an outside viewpoint, therefore, the physiological and experimental re- searches of the Institute at this time do not represent one of the brighter pages in its early history. They are significant, how- ever, from the viewpoint of the overall growth and develop- ment of the Institute because they did provide a base on which to develop much stronger experimental studies later. The departments discussed so far are those that have held the greatest significance for international botanical circles. The 96 Komarov Botanical Institute remaining prewar departments—Living Plants, Plant Raw Materials, and the Museum—have had their greatest signifi- cance on the national scene. This 1s particularly true of the Department of Plant Raw Materials whose program through the years probably has been geared the most closely of all the departments to the demands of Soviet economic planning. Likewise, the Museum’s chief function has been public educa- tion. Accordingly, much detail concerning these departments will be omitted in the following résumés. The Department of Plant Raw Materials and Botanical Prospecting, as it was formally titled, was founded in 1934 under the leadership of B. N. Klopotov (1882-1942). He was succeeded by M:> Me Ijin’ (889— ~) in’ 1938) vandlatren 1944 the department became known simply as the Depart- ment of Plant Resources. Its work down to the present time can be summarized as plant exploration, introduction, and utilization, and it has employed both economic botanists, con- cerned with the theory or “botany’”’ of plant utilization, and botanical-agricultural technologists of various sorts. In the latter connection should be mentioned the establishment of a plant chemistry laboratory in the department for elaborating the chemical structure of important plant substances (p. 116). The principal activities of the department during the prewar years are characterized very well by Lebedev et al.: Numerous expeditions were organized for prospecting for new sources of plant raw materials: new oil-seed plants, new textile-fiber plants, brush-fiber, filling-fiber, plaiting and rough-weaving fiber plants, new useful ligneous plants, new drug-plants (both medicinal and insecticidal), in particular, alkaloid plants, new essential-oil, gum and resin plants. (2, p. 22) Iljin’s own researches covered various problems in economic botany and the phylogeny of plants. During his tenure (1938- 59) he was responsible for convening three national symposia on the topic of phylogeny (2). Altogether, this was an extreme- The Institute: Departmental Activities 97 ly active department during the 1930s and in the eyes of the Government probably the most important department at the Institute. Shortly after the merger, the Department of Living Plants was renamed the Department of the Botanic Garden, called, simply, the Botanic Garden. The department had jurisdiction over the greenhouse-conservatory complex and all the outdoor nurseries and plantings, but lacked jurisdiction over all the remaining units (e.g., herbarium) of the former Principal (Imperial) Botanic Garden. Thus the Institute’s Botanic Garden was a botanic garden in the true sense. For a time it continued to rank as the Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR, as its predecessor, but today the Principal Botanic Garden 1s located in Moscow, and the Leningrad Garden 1s known only as the Botanic Garden of the Komarov Botanical Institute (16). The Department of the Botanic Garden was headed by A. P. Iljinsky (1888-1945) only unul 1934 when N. V. Shipchinsky (1886-1955) became head. Shipchinsky was succeeded in 1938 by S. J. Sokolov, who relinquished this post to Shipchinsky again in 1942 because of being evacuated for duties in Kazan. Shipchinsky remained in besieged Leningrad. In 1948, Sokolov once again returned to the post of head of the department. (For postwar heads, see footnote on p. 116.) Research in the Botanic Garden (7,11,12) during the first years was concerned primarily with the taxonomy and geogra- phy of plants and complemented the work going on in the Department of Vascular Plants. The Garden staff, helped by personnel in other departments, built up one of the richest indoor collections of tropical and subtropical plants in the world. Besides these plants, many regional groups were estab- lished both indoors and outdoors. The outdoor nurseries, gardens, and park were used in an extensive program of plant 98 Komarov Botanical Institute introduction and acclimatization, and after 1938 the staff ef- forts were largely turned to this work. Under the new leader- ship, the department was charged with the task of elucidating the theoretical basis of acclimatization. Also, the staff was called upon to investigate problems of ornamental and agri- cultural gardening. Altogether, the staff of the Botanic Garden had nearly 800 species of woody plants and 4000 species of perennial and annual herbs under cultivation outdoors by 1941, despite hard winters in 1938, 1939, and 1940. This was no mean feat for a botanic garden that lies 500-600 miles north of similar gardens in the United States and Canada. The gardens in Scandinavia that lie at about the same latitude as Leningrad are subject to a milder climate because of the Gulf Stream. Except for the ‘‘Polar-Alpine Botanic Garden” on the Kola Peninsula north of Leningrad, there is no garden in the world that is subject to more severe environmental conditions than the Komarov Botanic Garden. Because so much of the Soviet Union, like Canada, lies at high latitudes, this Garden has played a very important role through the years in the introduction of ornamental trees and shrubs and other useful plants into Soviet cultivation and trade. In addition to its own programs the Botanic Garden has functioned in a supporting capacity for all the other depart- ments of the Institute, and it has carried a large share of the public education responsibility (also see p. 135). From the date of its official founding in 1823, the Imperial Botanic Garden had its own Museum where collections and various objects that did not fall explicitly into the province of any other department were housed and, sometimes, studied (Polyansky im 8, 13, 21). In a sense, this Museum was a catch-basket department, and from time to time new labora- tories and departments were split off from it and the pertinent Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute unless otherwise noted _Aszexcangp A. [poccreiim Asexcanip A. KieHknn Axexcelt I. Uapnucrnit Aleksandr A. Grossheim Aleksandr A. Elenkin Aleksei P. Iljinsky (1888- (1888-1948), taxonomist. (1873-1942), cryptogamic 1945), phytogeographer. | botanist. From Baranov and Bobrov (8) (ppukan H. Kpumroposny Hukorait UW. Kysnenos Buaagumup H. Jooumenko frikan N. Krishtofovich Nikolail. Kuznetzov (1864- Vladimir N. Lubimenko 1885-1953), paleobotanist. 1932), geobotanist. (1873-1937), physiologist. Courtesy Smithsonian Institution )\ Hurosai A. Montesepje Visan B. Ilaanonu Pomag HO. Poxesny : Nikolai A. Monteverde’ Ivan V. Palibin (1872- Roman U. Roshevitz (1882- | (1856-1929), physiologist. 1949), paleobotanist. 1949), agrostologist. Boajemap I’. (A). Tpanmeszp Ceprefi B. KOsemuayk Voldemar G. (A.) Tranz- Sergei V. Juzepezuk (1893- schel (1868-1942), mycol- 1959), taxonomist. ogist. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute unless otherwise noted you - 7 > , ZUR Oe PSS 2G PT. : | : 1st . taxonom TS Log _ DequeHKo A 2 US C YM Bop N i lore) — SS o) aS Ss ) ae oO N pes) io} oO fy VOY) Vo 7 Wy Boris A (8) Yi Y) and Bobrov om Baranov Fy Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Buxrtop Il. Bovanes Middle , examining specimens in | 5 LOD8: Oat (S| 1 2 HH iss) fe) tH v de “— Qe © as 4 ON ee) —""_ 0 > Oe Za a as Oo . ° oa) AY Victor The Institute: Departmental Activities 99 collections were transferred to the new unit. It also had some kind of public exhibits for many years. Two of the main re- search functions of the Garden’s Museum during the pre- Institute years of this century, especially since the Revolution, were the study of paleobotany and the study of plant raw materials and products. Throughout the Garden’s long history, all fossil plant collections had been housed here. In 1934, the new Department of Plant Raw Materials and Botanical Pros- pecting was created on the basis of resources in the Museum, and a group of the Museum’s scientific staff and a significant block of the collections were transferred to this new depart- ment. (These collections were returned to the Museum in 1940.) The experimental plant products laboratory was also transferred out of the Museum, and about 1934 the paleobo- tanical collections were transferred to the Department of Vas- cular Plants (p. 105). As a result of these moves during the early years of the new Botanical Institute, the research activ- ities of the Museum were severely curtailed, and its space and facilities were significantly reduced. The Institute’s Botanical Museum now became little more than a public exhibition hall. Exhibits, developed gradually over a period of many years, were built largely around actual plant materials or products. By 1931 the exhibits were in sad condition and badly out of date, and in 1933 Sukaczev headed up a new effort to redo them. The Museum was closed to the public for 4 years, and during this time most of the older exhibits, based on the Museum’s valuable collections, were withdrawn or greatly reduced. They were replaced by new placard exhibits pitched to the secondary school level. These had three themes: (1) ‘“The Vegetation of the Soviet Union as a Natural Resource,” (2) ‘The History of the Plant King- dom,” and (3) ‘““The Work of the Botanical Institute.’’ Thus, the Museum ceased to serve as a scientific department of the 100 Komarov Botanical Institute Institute, and became instead a pedagogical resource for in- structing secondary school students. Altogether, the 1930s were rather deplorable years for the Museum, according to Lebedev et al. (2, p. 23), who write concerning it: “Only after the World War II was it possible to proceed to the preparation of a new exposition that could meet the high scientific requirements of our time.” Today, in addition to its educational exhibiting, the Museum again carries out certain scientific research activities in the Institute. War Years (1941-44) Within 2 years after the outbreak of World War II in Po- land (1939) Hitler’s armies had advanced eastward to the outskirts of Leningrad, where they set up the infamous 900- day blockade that brought great destruction to the city and ultimately involved virtually all of its citizens in bitter hostili- ties. The blockade period (1941-44) was an especially diffi- cult and tragic time in the life of the Botanical Institute. At the outset of the war the scientific staff became scattered and the research activities at the Institute all but ceased. The ma- jority of the staff were either enlisted in the Red Army for duty at the front or were evacuated to the east for paramili- tary scientific activities. One group under Director Schisch- kin was evacuated to Kazan in the fall of 1941, just before the blockade tightened, where they engaged in a crash program for the development and utilization of plant resources for the war effort. In 1942, a group of geobotanists who had survived the first bitter winter of the blockade was evacuated to Mos- cow and charged specifically with the geobotanical mapping of western European USSR; they worked under the leader- ship of E. M. Lavrenko. A small corps of the staff, headed by V. S. Sokolov (as dis- The Institute: Departmental Activities 101 tinguished from S. J. Sokolov, the evacuated head of Botanic Garden), remained in Leningrad and devoted itself primarily to the defense of the city. At the same time some urgent applied research, directed toward the war effort, was carried on at the Institute. Concerning this, Lebedev ez al. write (2, pp. 24-25): . . . particular attention was drawn to the mobilization of botanical knowledge to serve the needs of the front and of the population of the blocaded city. The workers of the Institute were elaborating new methods of land camouflage and improved methods of reading the serial air- photographs of stretches of woodland, tundra and bog, the methods of collecting and processing of Sphagnum for the production of antiseptics and medicinal preparations. They sought for new sources of vitamins, for medicinal plants, etc. Even some pure research continued. Under the leadership of I. T. Vassilczenko, volume 11 of Flora SSSR was completed, and through the intercession of B. A. Tikhomirov enough pa- per was secured to print a limited edition late in the fall of 1941 when the population was already in an advanced state of starvation (2, 9). The preparation of other volumes also went forward. Bobrov (9) writes: N. F. Goncharov, already desperately weakened by starvation, pro- ceeded with the account of the genus Astragalus which made up Volume 12. Later that winter [1942] this account was defended as his thesis for the degree of doctor of biology, and in February 1942 Goncharov died of hunger. Other graduate students continued their studies toward the candidate and doctorate degrees, and esoteric researches on cryptogamic plants proceeded. Despite everything, a new lab- oratory was even organized during this terrible time (p. 107). In 1946 the Institute published a ‘Volume of Scientific Works Carried Out in Leningrad During the Course of the Three Years of the Great National War (1941—43).”’ All but one of the 25 greenhouses were destroyed by bombs and shells during subzero weather, and the great majority of the valuable tropical and subtropical collections perished (7, 102 Komarov Botanical Institute 11). Only by the valiant efforts of individual workers, hungry and starving, were any of the indoor plantings saved. Some of the workers cared for specialized collections in their own apart- ments. One horticulturist saved the cactus collection by taking it home for the duration of the war. The outdoor plantings were also seriously damaged and depleted. Miraculously, the Herbarium-Library Building was not hit, and not a book or herbarium sheet was lost. One is amazed that the entire Insti- tute was not completely leveled when one sees, as I was shown by Director Fedorov, how close to the heart of the complex bombs fell, e.g., beside the Palm Conservatory. It is to the enormous good fortune of botany everywhere that the tragedy of the Berlin Herbarium was averted at Leningrad, especially because the Komarov Herbarium 1s the birthplace of so much Asian botany. Many of the Institute’s prewar scientific and other person- nel did not survive the war, either having died of starvation during the blockade or having been killed in action at the front or in the defense of Leningrad. Among those lost during the war should be mentioned N. A. Busch, A. N. Danilov, N. F. Goncharov, A. A. Elenkin, J. A. Znamensky, B. N. Klopotov, V. I. Kreczetowicz, A. I. Leskov, V.P. Maleev, I. A. Ol, A. V. Prozorovsky, K. K. Shaparenko, V. G. Tranzschel, and A. V. Yarmolenko. Nearly all of the surviving Leningrad group were decorated after the war for bravery in defense of the city. (2, 3 ) Postwar Years (1945-66) In the spring of 1942, personnel at the Institute began the painful spadework of rebuilding the greenhouses and restor- ing the collections. “Seeds were sown, cuttings were planted, fern spores, collected from frozen plants, were sown” (2, p. 26). Not until 1944, however, did the first surviving evac- The Institute: Departmental Activities 103 uees begin returning to the Institute, after the German siege had been lifted and the front had advanced far to the west of Soviet borders. They returned to find most of the greenhouse complex leveled, the rich indoor and outdoor collections of living plants ravaged, and the remaining staff sadly depleted. Yet little time was lost fretting. Now the enormous task of rebuilding the facilities and resuming normal scientific activi- ties could begin in earnest. The task of rebuilding the greenhouses and conservatories went slowly at first because of the lack of resources in the im- mediate postwar period, and by the early 1950s only about a fourth of the complex had been reconstructed. Then in 1953 the Institute received an appropriation of 6.1 million rubles to complete the reconstruction. Within the next 3 years 18 houses were constructed, for a total of 24, bringing the greenhouse-conservatory complex back essentially to its pre- war status (25 houses). Today there are 27 houses, and the total area under glass is more than a hectare (about 2.5 acres). The Museum also had been damaged extensively in the war, and it was closed to the public between 1945 and 1951 for restoration. The 1953 appropriation made it possible to build a brand new museum building during the late 1950s. It was built in the greenhouse quadrangle and took the place of one of the prewar houses (No. 5). With the completion of this new Museum in 1960 the postwar reconstruction phase came to a close. (2, 3, 7, Sokolov in 8, 13, correspondence with Al. A. Fedorov, 1966) The companion task of restoring the exotic collections, as already mentioned, began at once after the war. The Institute’s expeditionary work was resumed in 1945, and in the years since expeditions have taken staff members into all parts of the USSR and to many foreign countries, including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, North 104 Komarov Botanical Institute Viet-Nam, United Arab Republic, and various countries of Eastern and Western Europe. A principal objective on these trips has been to send back live plants and seeds for the Botan- ic Garden. In 1947, for example, four Institute botanists, including Schischkin and Juzepezuk, carried out a short expe- dition to Argentina and (mainly) Brazil and sent back 730 specimens (200 species) of live plants, as well as a small herbarium collection (2000 sheets). (Juzepczuk had been to Brazil in 1928 on a much longer expedition when he collected 10,000 herbarium specimens.) A rapidly growing seed ex- change program also helped greatly to replenish the Institute’s live collections. The state of the live collections before and after the war can be appreciated best by examining some comparative figures. In the immediate prewar period, more than 6000 species were growing in the greenhouses, but by the winter of 1942 less than 1500 species, kept under various makeshift condi- tions, could be tallied. Today, the number 1s back up to 3500. The outdoor plantings dropped from a high of nearly 800 woody plants and 4000 herbs before the war to about 450 and 800, respectively, in 1943. Today, the numbers almost reach prewar levels. Replenishing the indoor collections has de- pended, naturally, on the greenhouse reconstruction program and on the scale of expeditionary work, especially in the tropics, and thus has taken time. Rebuilding the outdoor collections has also been slow and very difficult but for somewhat different reasons. Owing to the harsh climate, every progress seems to be followed by two setbacks. At any rate, now, some 20 years later, the Botanic Garden is finally beginning to reach and surpass its prewar status. (2, 3, 7, 8 11) The tempo of scientific research and publication, resumed at the Institute in 1945, has steadily increased, especially since the 1950s. A whole series of new departments, laboratories, The Institute: Departmental Activities 105 and special programs have developed as the Institute has con- tinued to expand its applied and theoretical research efforts in all directions. It would take a book to chronicle the significant events and record the important persons and contributions of the postwar period alone. Only the briefest sketch can be given here. First, the development and growth of new units in the Institute will be examined, and then the postwar activities of the traditional departments will be considered. The most recent events of the past several years must receive the lightest treat- ment of all because these years are essentially current history and their events have not yet been fully recorded by the Rus- sians themselves. NEW DEVELOPMENTS A ‘‘Paleobotanical Laboratory (Section)” (2, 3, 13, 21) was organized in the Department of Vascular Plants during the thirties (ca. 1934) under the direction of I. V. Palibin (1872-1949). It was created from collections that previously were held in the Institute’s Botanical Museum (p. 99) and was devoted primarily to the study of the Tertiary flora of the USSR. Although Palibin lived until 1949, he became in- capacitated at the time of World War II, and his laboratory was set adrift until 1951 when the well-known Russian paleo- botanist A. N. Krishtofovich (1885-1953), corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, resurrected the laboratory and breathed new life into it. In 1952 the labora- tory was elevated to the status of a separate department, which Krishtofovich continued to head until his death. Prof. A. L. Takhtajan (1910- ), corresponding member of the Ar- menian Academy of Sciences, took over the department in 1954 and continues to serve as chief paleobotanist of the Insti- tute to the present time, although P. I. Dorofeev and others are also conducting important paleobotanical research. When 106 Komarov Botanical Institute the Institute was reorganized in 1960, the paleobotany group and collections again were subordinated to the Department of Vascular Plants, and since then Takhtajan has been head of the department as well as head of its Laboratory of Paleo- botany (p. 121). Iljinskaya et al. (21) describe the paleobotanical collections and activities of the laboratory in some detail, including a his- torical sketch. The collections include several thousand slides of leaf epidermises and about 2500 slides of fossil woods. Be- sides a large fossil fruit collection, they boast of having one of the largest coal ball collections in the world, which is highly unique. Studies of coal ball fossils are relatively recent here, having been conducted by Takhtajan and N. S. Snigirevskaya only since 1956. This is the only paleobotanical department in the Soviet Union that 1s affiliated with a botanical rather than geological institution, and its staff is able to concentrate on theoretical problems of evolution and phylogeny instead of utilitarian problems of stratigraphy. Takhtajan’s writings in morphology and evolution have been translated and widely read abroad so that today he is perhaps the best known living Russian botanist. Some of his best known works are his books: “‘Morphological Evolution of the Angiosperms”’ (1948, in Russian); *? ““Ori- gins of Angiospermous Plants’ (1954, in Russian; translated by Gankin, 1958, Washington, D. C.);*! “Essays on the Evo- lutionary Morphology of Plants’? (1954, in Russian; trans- lated by Gankin, 1959, Washington, D. C.);3? “Vascular Plants I. Psilophytales to Coniferales’’ (1956, in Russian; 3°Mopdoxormueckad BONA WoKpHTOcemenubtx. Mocksa. (Morfologiche- skaya evolutsiya pokrytosemennykh. Moskva.) “1]Tpoucxomfennve WOKpbITOCeMeHHBIX pactTeHuit. Mocxrga. (Proiskhozhdenie pokrytosemennykh rasteniy. Moskva.) (2nd ed. 1961, Moscow.) ®*-Bonpochl DBOAWIMOHHOM MOpmosoruM pactenui. Jlenuurpagz. ( Voprosy evo- lutsionnoy morfologii rasteniy. Leningrad.) The Institute: Departmental Activities 107 textbook); *? Die Evolution der Angiospermen (1959, Jena); and ‘‘Foundations of Evolutionary Morphology of the Angio- sperms” (1964, in Russian). ** Takhtajan’s broad research interests include not only mor- phology and paleobotany but also taxonomy, and recently he has become a champion of biosystematics and other modern approaches to taxonomy in the Soviet Union (5, 22). Dorofeev, like Takhtajan, is interested in the history and evolution of floras. ** Limited morphological and anatomical studies had been carried out through the years in scattered units of the Institute and its predecessor institutions. In 1942, V. G. Aleksandrov (1887-1964) came to the Institute, and the next year, at the height of the war, he organized a new “‘Laboratory of Anatomy and Morphology” within the Department of Vascular Plants. Departmental status was accorded the Laboratory in 1949. The early work of Aleksandrov’s group was concerned pri- marily with anatomy, especially what can be called ‘‘applied anatomy,’ as might be expected during the war and early postwar years. In the late forties attention was gradually turned to theoretical questions in evolutionary morphology (particularly floral morphology and evolution), embryology, and cytology. As an outgrowth of this trend, the Department of Anatomy and Morphology became the birthplace and orga- nizing center of a number of new and significant research directions in the Institute. In 1953, a special “‘Laboratory of *3Bricmue pactenua. I. Or ucuaodurospx fo xBpotubrx. Mocksa-lennurpa. (Vysshie rasteniya. I. Ot psilofitovykh do kbvoynykh. Moskva-Leningrad.) 34QCHOBBI SBOAWNMOHHOM MopororMu WoKpHiTocemenuEIX. M.-1. (Osnovy evo- lutsionnoy morfologii pokrytosemennykh. M.-L.) 35 Topodees, II. HW. 1965. O nekoropprx mpo6semax uctopun aopH. bor. ypu. 50: 1509-1522. (Dorofeev, P. I. O nekotorykh problemakh istorii flory |“On some problems of the history of the flora”]. Bot. Zhurn.) 108 Komarov Botanical Institute Cytology” was founded by M. S. Navashin (1896—__ ),°° and in 1956 M. S. Yakovlev (1902— ) organized a separate research team in embryology and morphogenesis. At the time of his death in 1964, Aleksandrov was the lead- ing figure among plant anatomists and morphologists in the Soviet Union (23), and he certainly stands as one of the fore- most Russian botanists of the 20th century. His laboratories became the principal training center of the Soviet Union for graduate work in anatomy and morphology. Outside the Soviet Union he also had become widely known especially from his editorship of the morphology-anatomy series of the Komarov Institute’s Acta (p. 167) and his textbook, “Anat- omy of Plants” (3rd edition 1954, 4th edition 1964), part of which was published in Chinese in 1961 (Peking). During his lifetime he published almost 200 scientific papers and books, many of them in collaboration with his wife and long- time research partner Olga G. Aleksandrova, who, with his son, died in the blockade winter of 1942. Yakovlev and Dani- lova, in their obituary of Aleksandrov (23), list his publica- tions since 1947 and cite another list of his previous publica- tions. (2, 3, Aleksandrov and Yakovlev in 8, 23) Aleksandrov, Yakovlev, and others have published some pacesetting anatomical, morphological, and embryological researches in the Acta, which have been much overlooked. Of all the Institute’s traditional spheres of inquiry, those that have experienced the greatest program expansion and re- orientation during the postwar years are plant physiology and the experimental disciplines in general. The Institute’s experi- mental researches over the previous years had been strongly directed toward agricultural and other problems, but in the early fifties a series of new laboratories and programs were 361t was Professor Navashin’s father, S.G. Navashin (1857-1930),who devel- oped the famous cytological fixative. “Navashin’s Solution.” See also p. 52. The Institute: Departmental Activities 109 started which have given the experimental program of the In- stitute new impetus. The emphasis on applied problems has not necessarily flagged, although it is perhaps less flagrant than it once was, but many of the Institute’s experimental re- searchers of the late postwar and recent period have worked on theoretical problems of genuine interest to biologists every- where. Researches on the mechanism of photosynthesis have been intensified, and Institute botanists have recently (1965) published studies on the ultrastructure of the chloroplast, for example. Some of the new laboratories have been affiliated with the existing Department of Ecology and Physiology, headed after 1953 by I. N. Konovalov, specialist on the physiology of growth and development. Other new labs have been set up independently within the Institute, without departmental af- filiation. In 1950, the Department of Ecology and Physiology began to collaborate with the Pamir Biological Experiment Station (Tadzhikistan Republic) on studies of photosynthesis in high mountain plants. The group of physiologists on this project were shortly (1952) organized into an independent “Laboratory of Photosynthesis,’ headed by O. V. Zalensky, where all Institute researches related to photosynthesis, includ- ing those concerning pigment chemistry and physiology, were brought together. Also in 1952, Yakimov’s laboratory (p. 71), dealing with the biology, biochemistry, and pharmacology of microorganisms, with special reference to the development of antibiotics, was transferred to the Institute as an independent unit, and M. J. Shkolnik’s “‘Laboratory of Microelements”’ was formed in the Department of Ecology and Physiology. Shkolnik’s group has been studying the effects of trace elements and has dealt with many problems of field crop production. In 1957, V. J. Aleksandrov (as distinguished from V. G. Alek- sandrov, the anatomist) started an independent ‘Laboratory 110 Komarov Botanical Institute of Cytoecology and Cytophysiology,” which later was attached to the Department of Ecology and Physiology. (2, 3, 8) One final new development of the postwar period deserves special mention. The war had brought the Institute so nearly to total disaster that the surviving staff, shocked by its losses, understandably showed a profound interest in history and heritage, and various members began to devote much attention to botanical history and bibliography. In 1955, this interest in history was given recognition in the Institute by formal creation of a small historical section, headed by Director Baranov. His work on the history of plant embryology was mentioned earlier(p. 79). Two other works growing out of this period are Lipschitz’ ““Who’s Who” of Russian botany (Botanicorum Rossicorum: Lexicon Biographico-Bibliograpb- icarum. Vols 1-4. 1947-52. [Through ‘““K’’]), which we can only hope will be completed some day, and Lebedev’s *‘Intro- duction to the Botanical Literature of the USSR: A Hand- book for Geobotanists’” (1956). The Lexicon gives extensive biographies and complete bibliographies for more than 1000 botanists, and it is unrivaled in botanical literature. Both Lipschitz and Lebedev have been extremely active over the years in chronicling Russian botanical history, especially with reference to the Komarov Institute. S. J. Lipschitz (1905— ) is a remarkable man—a humanist and a scholar who has had an outstanding career in botany, publishing pro- lifically in taxonomy, biography, bibliography, and history, beginning in 1928. For the occasion of his 60th birthday D. V. Lebedev and M. E. Kirpicznikov, two of his distinguished colleagues, have written a moving tribute to him, listing his mayor publications. 37 (2) 37JTedeqes, J. B., a M. 9. Kupnmunnkos. 1965. Cepret WOssesny Jonmay (K 60-xermo co 2ua pomgenua). Bor. mypu. 50: 1469-1480. (Lebedev, D. V., and M. E. Kirpicznikov. Sergei Julievich Lipschitz (K 60-letiyu so dnya rozhbdeniya) |‘“To his 60th birthday” ]. Bot. Zhurn.) The Institute: Departmental Activities 111 ACTIVITIES IN TRADITIONAL DEPARTMENTS With the exceptions already given pertaining largely to the Department of Ecology and Physiology, it is fair to say that there have been few significant changes in the basic directions of the research in the existing departments since the war. Long-term researches, interrupted by the war, were resumed gradually in the postwar years, and on the whole new projects have been the outgrowth of existing ones or have followed naturally from the traditional functions of the departments concerned. However, the tempo and scope of traditional activi- ties has increased enormously and continues to do so. In the Department of Vascular Plants, Schischkin became head de jure in 1945 after Komarov died, and Takhtajan succeeded Schischkin in 1963. Unfortunately, Schischkin did not live to see the last volume of Flora SSSR appear in mid- 1964, although he knew its completion was assured. Untl very recently, the Flora Project was the focal point of depart- mental research, but, as in prewar years, many other floristic and monographical projects have proceeded simultaneously. With the Flora nearing completion, the department’s attention turned to new fields. Plans were made in the early sixties and indeed are still being made for new, intensive monographical studies and some type of revision of Flora SSSR. Immediately following the war some of the staff became interested again in tropical research, and the first postwar tropical expedition was conducted by Juzepczuk and Schisch- kin to Argentina and Brazil during 1947 (orm. BS, 1022). Ih 1955-57, Andrey A. Fedorov, I. A. Linchevsky, and M. E. Kirpicznikov—all prominent members of the department— conducted a series of expeditions into tropical regions of south- western China, jointly with Chinese botanists. Presumably, joint research on these collections is in progress. Aleksandr A. Federov was in China during 1959-60. Cordial Indonesian- 112 Komarov Botanical Institute Soviet relations in recent years have fostered considerable interest in Indonesian plants. In 1961, Andrey Fedorov and another Soviet botanist participated in a 3-month expedition to Sumbawa in the Lesser Sunda Islands, led by A. Koster- mans from the Bogor Botanic Garden and Herbarium (24). This, however, was not the first postwar trip of a Soviet botanist to Bogor (25), nor was it the last. Two years later M. S. Yakovlev, from another department of the Botanical Institute, spent nearly a year (April 1963-March 1964) at the Bogor Botanic Garden on morphological research (26). The curator of the Middle Asian Herbarium of the depart- ment, V. P. Botchantsev, made two trips to Egypt recently (1960, 1962) and published an outline of the country’s vegeta- tion (27, 28, 29). These expeditions and many others have added large num- bers of specimens to the herbarium since the war. Concerning the long-range growth of the vascular herbarium, Schisch- kin (in 8, p. 90) stated that about 1 million specimens had been added between 1917 and 1957, a period of 40 years. This was an average annual increment of 25,000 specimens, although accessions stopped or trickled during the war years, which was comparable to the growth rate of about 30,000 specimens a year at the U. S. National Herbarium. Professor Andrey A. Fedorov (1909—_ ), brother of Di- rector Aleksandr A. Fedorov, is a leading taxonomist not— only in the Botanical Institute but in the Soviet Union. Al- though Takhtajan, as the new head of the Department of Vascular Plants, became legal heir to Schischkin, Fedorov has become in a sense the ‘“‘spiritual’’ heir. Heading the Lab- oratory of Systematics, he now directs the largest group of botanists in the department and carries on the taxonomic leadership and many of the editing responsibilities of Schisch- kin. He is a foremost authority on the Campanulaceae and on The Institute: Departmental Activities 113 the floristics and systematics of Caucasian plants. After the death of A. A. Grossheim (1888-1948), who was the leading scholar of Caucasian plants, Fedorov succeeded him as curator of the Caucasian Herbarium and took over the editing of Grossheim’s ‘‘Flora of the Caucasus”’ (ed. 2). In recent years Fedorov has turned much attention to the study of tropical Asian plants, as indicated by his expeditionary activity dis- cussed earlier. At the 10th International Botanical Congress in Edinburgh (1964), Fedorov, who was the only Soviet tax- onomist to attend, cochaired a session of the Phytogeography Section and read a paper entitled, ““The Structure of the Tropical Rain Forest and Speciation in the Humid Tropics” (Journ. Ecol. 54: 1-11. 1966). He has replaced the late Schischkin as Soviet advisor for the Flora Europaea Project, and most recently (1965) has initiated and undertaken to edit a concise ‘‘Flora of the European Part of the USSR,” to be patterned after Flora Europaea and published in three vol- umes. The help of many Soviet taxonomists will be enlisted for this project. Another of the very noteworthy floristic projects under way in his Laboratory is the preparation of the multi- volumed compendium ‘‘Plants of Central Asia,’ whose chief editor is V. I. Grubov, well-known regional specialist on Cen- tral Asia. The first fascicle of this work, providing a compre- hensive introduction on the flora and vegetation, treatment of the ferns, and materials toward a bibliography of regional literature on the flora and vegetation, appeared in 1963. The Department of Cryptogamic Plants (2, 3) reached a climactic moment in the accomplishment of its long-range goals when in 1952 it published the first of the projected multivolume Flora Sporovykh Rasteniy SSSR (‘‘Flora of the Cryptogamic Plants of the USSR’). This volume by the emi- nent bryologist Savicz-Lubitskaya covered the sphagnum mosses of the USSR. By 1960, five volumes covering parts of 114 Komarov Botanical Institute the mosses, algae, and fungi had appeared. Alongside this central work, the department has continued to issue mono- graphs and manuals. Notable examples are the 3-volume handbook, “Diatom Analysis” (1949-50), by A. I. Proshkina- Lavrenko and collaborators, which won a state prize, and the ‘Manual of the Leafy Mosses of the Arctic of the USSR” (1961, 714 pp.), by A. L. Abramova, L. I. Savicz-Lubitskaya, and Z. N. Smirnova. Phycologist M. M. Hollerbach has been carrying out researches in Antarctica in recent years as part of the Soviet biological program there. The Department of Geobotany (2, 3, 8) has engaged in a large number of theoretical and applied researches since the war and has issued a number of very significant books and maps. Forage crop production and yield, forestation and forest management, and the reclamation of arid lands have been some of the department’s chief concerns in the realm of ap- plied science. In collaboration with other departments of the Institute, particularly the Department of Plant Resources, and other Soviet scientific and agricultural institutions, the De- partment of Geobotany has played a very significant role in the Government’s much propagandized ‘‘virgin lands” pro- gram, spearheaded by former Premier Khrushchev, which put vast acres of virgin or long-fallow arid lands in Kazakhstan and Western Siberia under cultivation. The department’s geobotanical mapping program and its theoretical vegetation studies continue to draw the widest at- tention and achieve the greatest usefulness outside the Soviet Union of all its manifold researches. Under the editorship of Lavrenko and Sochava, the “Vegetation Map of the European Part of the USSR” (1949, scale 1:2,500,000) and ‘‘Geobo- tanical Map of the USSR” (1955, scale 1:4,000,000, 8 sheets), accompanied by a 2-volume explanatory text, “Veg- etation Cover of the USSR,” have been issued (1956). In The Institute: Departmental Activities 115 1957, the department, in collaboration with botanical institu- tions of the Middle Asian republics, published the “‘Geobotan- ical Map of Middle Asia” (1:1,000,000). Special mention should also be given the methodological handbook, ‘Field Geobotany,”’ which is being published in five volumes, under the general editorship of E. M. Lavrenko and A. A. Korczagin. The first appeared in 1959, and the third was published in 1964 (cf. lengthy review in October 1965 issue of Botani- chesky Zhurnal ). Russian botanists consider this reference work to be a milestone in the literature of geobotany, and, indeed, American botanists have shown much interest in it. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) had the first volume translated, but publication has been long delayed because AIBS has ceased translation activities. This volume is only now being printed in England and should appear during 1967. In 1950, Professor B. A. Tikhomirov (1909- _ ), a lead- ing arctic geobotanist in the Institute, organized a special Arctic Section. Today he is the successor of the distinguished Lavrenko as head of the Department of Geobotany (3). Tikh- omirov teaches at Leningrad State University, and he is one of the most senior scientists affiliated with the Institute. Some measure of his ranking is provided by the fact that he has frequently been among the privileged few who have been chosen to represent the Soviet Union at international meetings in recent years. For example, he has attended the last three International Botanical Congresses, in Paris (8th, 1954), Montreal (9th, 1959), and Edinburgh (10th, 1964), respec- tively, and he had a major coordinating role in the USSR during the planning for the Tenth Congress (30; see also p. 7/3). The Department of Plant Resources (2, 3) stepped up its program to discover new plant raw materials and develop 116 Komarov Botanical Institute new products after the war, and to this end a Technological Laboratory (head, P. A. Yakimov) and a Chemical Labora- tory (head, G. V. Pigulevsky) were set up. In 1950 the depart- ment began to issue its voluminous handbook, “Plant Raw Materials of the USSR.” Prof. Aleksandr Fedorov, who has participated in the work of this department since about 1934 and has led a number of important prospecting expeditions, became the head in 1959. The Department of the Botanic Garden (2, 3,7, 8, 16, 31) has suffered two major catastrophes in the present century during the two world wars, but each time it has been able to rebuild its facilities, and its programs have gone forward with renewed vigor. Today it stands as one of the leading depart- ments of the Institute. Traditional researches on plant intro- duction and acclimatization, ornamental horticulture, and landscape architecture have been intensified, and the Garden plays a greater role than ever in theoretical research, both in its own department and in collaboration with other depart- ments. Two recent accounts of the department by Golovach (31) and Avrorin (7), the most recent heads, together give a detailed picture of present resources and programs. N. A. Avrorin * is currently head. In 1948 the scientific staff, under the editorial direction of S. J. Sokolov, began to compile “Trees and Shrubs of the USSR,” a multivolume manual on native and cultivated trees and shrubs suitable for ornamental and other uses in commerical trade. This manual, completed in 1962, occupies six volumes. Avrorin (7), who enumerates important recent publications of the Garden, notes that the 38E)epartment heads in the Soviet period (7): 1917-31, V.L. Komarov (1869-1945) 1942-48, N.V. Shipchinsky 1931-34, A.P. Iljinsky (1888-1945 ) 1948-58, S.J. Sokolov 1934-38, N.V. Shipchinsky 1958-60, A.G. Golovach (1886-1955) 1960- , N.A. Avrorin 1938-41, S.J. Sokolov The Institute: Departmental Activities 117 staff is now preparing a manual on the herbaceous cultivated plants of the USSR. He predicts that it will include 3000- 5000 species. Also, a new catalog of the greenhouse collections is being prepared. Historically, the Botanic Garden has carried a heavy ser- vice load, and today it welcomes upward of 150,000 visitors annually to its greenhouses and outdoor plantings. Several of its staff recently have published popular guidebooks on the Garden (11, 12). Many questions on the growing of plants are directed to the staff by the public, and various members of the staff are specialists on major groups of plants that are common- ly cultivated (e.g., Iris). The Seed Laboratory answers more than 1000 public inquiries a year. The Garden plays a large role in plant introduction and takes credit today for having introduced more than 1500 species (primarily decorative) into cultivation in the USSR from its nurseries, greenhouses, and arboretum. Many of the scientists in other departments of the Institute, for example, the Department of Vascular Plants, grow mate- rial in the Botanic Garden for their own research or joint research with Garden scientists. About 170 of the species col- lected in Brazil and Argentina by Schischkin’s party in 1947 are still growing in the greenhouse. Large foreign and domestic exchange programs are main- tained. Through exchange and expeditionary work more than 8000 samples of seeds and fruits were added to the Carpologi- cal Collection of the Seed Laboratory between 1948 and 1956, and at present the Seed Laboratory sends out two to three thousand samples a year on exchange. Programs have expanded much more rapidly than space and facilities, and currently the Garden is planning to build new facilities to handle tropical and subtropical plants and to bring them into flowering under the cold, high latitude condi- 118 Komarov Botanical Institute tions of Leningrad. The arboretum-park is to be reorganized and revitalized. The Botanic Garden continues to be a leader among na- tional botanic gardens of the USSR, of which there are now some 80 (16). Since 1939, when it convened the ‘First All- Union Conference of Botanic Gardens,” it has led the way consistently in sponsoring national symposia and organizing national cooperative research efforts (p. 133). The Department of the Botanical Museum (2, 3, Polyan- sky in 8, 13), as already indicated, prospered much after the war. The research and exhibit collections were built up greatly so that by 1965 they comprised about 70,000 specimens falling into three general categories: (1) Economic Botany Collection (plant products and materials), (2) Carpological Collection (seeds and fruits), and (3) Dendrological Collection (wood samples). F. Kh. Bakhteev is currently head curator, succeed- ing V. I. Polyansky who died in 1959 * (see p. 72). The staff is devoted to the preparation of modern scientific exhibits and to research on various collections. A prime func- tion of the Museum has continued to be public display and education, and its modern building, completed in 1960, and exhibits constitute a major attraction to the public. The new building and completely new exhibits were not formally opened to the public until 1963, and in 1964 nearly 11,000 visitors passed through the halls. The principal exhibit depicts the ‘‘Vegetation of the World According to Phytogeographic Provinces,” but other important displays show the history of 39Head curators (13; for curators before 1892 see reference 13): 1892-1929, N.A. Monteverde 1939-41, A.V. Yarmolenko (1905-44) (1856-1929) 1941-45, G.V. Arkadyev (1899- ) 1929-32, I.V. Palibin (1872-1949) 1946-50, A.N. Krishtofovich 1932, V.N. Sukaczev (1880-1967 ) (1885-1953) 1933-34, N.V. Shipchinsky 1950-59, V.I. Polyansky (1907-59) (1886-1955 ) 1959- ,F.Kh. Bakhteev (1905- ) 1934-38, K.M. Zavadsky (1910- ) The Institute: Reorganization in 1960 119 the world’s floras, the biology of plants, and plant resources of the USSR. The Komarov Institute’s Botanical Museum 1s unique among Soviet museums and scientific institutions; its displays throughout the whole Museum are devoted exclusive- ly to plants, making it a highly specialized museum. Probably there is no comparable museum anywhere in the world. REORGANIZATION IN 1960 It is clear from the foregoing sections that the administra- tive structure of the Komarov Botanical Institute was by no means static between 1932 and 1960; departmental reorgani- zations and name changes had frequently occurred, and new departments and laboratories had been added. Nearly all major units of the Institute had changed leadership at least once. At the same time the overall departmental structure of 1932, itself an almost intact carryover from the former Principal Botanic Garden, dating to 1918, had remained basically un- changed. Thus, as previously indicated, the time was overdue for Director Baranov’s top-to-bottom administrative shakeup and reorganization in 1960. Now the whole Institute was subdivided into 24, pre- sumably independent and equal research laboratories. *° These in turn were federated into seven, subject-oriented groups, and each group was subordinated to a research coun- cil or ““Scientific-Methodic Council,” as it was called. For the time being, at least, the concept of “‘department” seems to have been abandoned and replaced by the “council” concept. That this new administrative structure did not remain static for long is evident by comparing the organizational summaries of Lebedev et al. (1962) and Fedorov (1964). Though their 40In fact, it is quite clear that the 24 laboratories are not all equally autono- mous in actual practice. 120 Komarov Botanical Institute accounts of the reorganization both emphasize the creation of 24 laboratories, there are some significant differences in their summaries of the subdivisions. Lebedev et al. (2) do not men- tion departments and simply list 24 laboratories in consecutive order. Fedorov (3), on the contrary, says there are five depart- ments, two independent laboratories, and the Botanical Mu- seum and Botanic Garden which function as departments. Altogether, the five departments are shown by Fedorov to be comprised of 20 laboratories, but he does not indicate whether the Botanic Garden and its subordinate physiology laboratory function as one or two laboratories (see below). Lebedev treated them as two. It is clear that the new Scientific-Methodic Councils soon took on much the same character as the old departments in the bureaucracy of the Institute and by 1964 were functioning in a departmental capacity. Otherwise, the differences between Lebedev and Fedorov point up the significant administrative changes since the early sixties. A new ‘Forest Laboratory” has been added to the Department of Geobotany, and the long-standing “Flora Laboratory,” headed by E. G. Bobrov right after the reorganization in 1960 (2), has been phased out by the completion of Flora SSSR. The “Laboratory of Systematics and Geography of Cryptogamic Plants,” still headed by the senior lichenologist V. P. Savicz in 1960, has been subdivided (see below). According to Director Aleksandr A. Fedorov (3), the following departments and laboratories were functioning within the structure of the Institute as of the 250th anni- versary celebration in 1964; their directors as of that time are given in parentheses. +! I have numbered the 24 labora- 41Professor Fédorov was kind enough to send me a reprint of his paper (3), including an English translation of the section summarizing the departments and laboratories, when he heard of my intention to write about the Komarov Botanical Institute. In general I have followed his translation in summarizing The Institute: Reorganization in 1960 121 tories consecutively. 42 I. DEPARTMENT OF VASCULAR PLANTS (A. L. Takhtajan) 1. Laboratory of Systematics (Taxonomy) and Geography of Vas- cular Plants (Andrey A. Fedorov) 2. Laboratory of Paleobotany (A. L. Takhtayan) Laboratory of Cytology (M. S. Navashin) 4. Herbarium of Vascular Plants (I. T. Vassilczenko, curator) Il. DEPARTMENT OF CRYPTOGAMIC PLANTS (M. M. Hollerbach) 5. Laboratory of Algology (M. M. Hollerbach) 6. Laboratory of Mycology (M. A. Litvinov) 7. Laboratory of Lichenology and Bryology (I. I. Abramov) Ill. DEPARTMENT OF GEOBOTANY (B.A. Tikhomirov) 8. Laboratory of General and Experimental Geobotany (FE. M. Lavrenko) 9. Laboratory of Vegetation of the Northern Regions [of the USSR] (B. A. Tikhomirov) 10. Laboratory of Vegetation of the Forest Zone [of the USSR] (A. A. Korczagin) 11. Academician V. N. Sukaczev’s Group (in Moscow working on problems of biogeocoenology) [Sukaczev died in 1967; see p. 51.] 12. Laboratory of Vegetation of the Arid Regions [of the USSR] (L. E. Rodin) 13. Laboratory of Botanical Cartography (A. A. Yunatov) these units here, but not entirely. I have, however, used his translation for the first two departments listed, both here and throughout this paper, because his are the most common of the several translations used in Russian sources. In Russian, the titles are Orgea Brrcmux pacrenun (Otdel Vysshikh Rastenty ) and Orjeax nu3mux pactesuit (Otdel Nizshikh Rasteniy), respectively, which literally translated would be “Department of Higher Plants” and “Depart- ment of Lower Plants.” Recently, there has been a tendency on the part of the Institute (e.g., on stationery) to use these literal translations. In terms of the plants covered, the perfectly acceptable and parallel translations “Department of Vascular Plants” and “Department of Nonvascular Plants” would actually be the most accurate and linguistically consistent. However, there is another Russian word for “vascular,” often used in other contexts— cocyluctHl (sosudistyy). “Fedorov really lists more than 24 laboratories in his paper and does not indicate which ones comprise the heralded “24”; my numbering is based on his translation (see footnote 41) which eliminates the laboratories placed in parenthesis here. 22 IV. VI. VIL. VII. IX. Komarov Botanical Institute 14. Laboratory of Cytoecology and Cytophysiology (V. J. Aleksan- drov) (Department also has a “secondary” Soil Ecology Laboratory) DEPARTMENT OF PLANT RESOURCES (ECONOMIC PLANTS) (Aleksandr A. Fédorov) 15. Laboratory of Plant Resources (Botany of Economic Plants) (Al. A. Fedorov) 16. Laboratory of Chemistry of Plant Materials [so-called ‘*Chemi- cal Laboratory” of Institute] (1. S. Kozhina) 17. Laboratory of Lower Plant Biochemistry [Microorganisms] (A. N. Shivrina) 18. Technological Laboratory (S. D. Steinbock) (Introduction Nursery of Medicinal and Commercial Plants—V. S. Sokolov) . DEPARTMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY MORPHOLOGY (M. S. Yakovlev) 19. Laboratory of Embryology (M. S. Yakovlev) 20. Laboratory of Anatomy and Morphology (M. F. Danilova) BOTANIC GARDEN (N. A. Avrorin) (Outdoor Plantings—A. G. Golovach) (Indoor Planungs—S. G. Saakov) 21. Laboratory of Plant Growth and Development (I. N. Konovalov) 22. BOTANICAL MUSEUM (fF. Kh. Bakhteev) 23. LABORATORY OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS (O. V. Zalensky) [physiology and ecology of photosynthesis] 24. LABORATORY OF MICROELEMENTS (M. J. Shkolnik) [mineral nutrition; physiological effects of trace elements] The Institute also has an affiliated Experimental Station at Otradnoye near Leningrad and field plots on some local state farms. These “‘laboratories’’ represent the primary research groups of the Institute. Each laboratory concentrates related investiga- tions and responsibilities of the Institute’s total program under The Institute: Reorganization in 1960 123 one chief. Ideally, each laboratory group consists of no less than 5 to 7 staff members. Some of the laboratories are func- tional units, working together on a daily basis in the manner that the term “laboratory” ordinarily connotes, while others are mainly coordinating units, loosely federating botanists of a common discipline (e.g., lichenology) or program (e.g., Flora SSSR). A given scientist may carry out duties in a functional laboratory and conduct research in a coordinating laboratory (e.g., Laboratory of Systematics) (32). In the collection- oriented departments (e.g., Cryptogamic Plants), the subdivi- sion into ‘laboratories’ has made it possible to assign curatorial responsibilities objectively. In the Department of Vascular Plants this goal is achieved by means of a geographical sub- division (see next section). Some laboratories are firmly established administrative units in the organizational structure of the Institute, and they have a measure of permanence and continuing influence, whatever they are called from time to time. Other laboratories seem to be little more than transitory paper tutles which have a way of changing or disappearing at will. Obviously, such utles come cheap, as in all bureaucracies; yet they serve the legiti- mate, universal, bureaucratic function of giving recognition and support to disciplines and programs and providing director- ships—with their accompanying prestige, equality, and auton- omy—for many scientists who otherwise would be slighted in the power structure. One need only scan a roster of Soviet delegates to an international congress to appreciate the magic and ‘‘pull’”’ of being a ‘‘director,’ whatever you direct (30). (The Russian word for director is a favorite title for scientific administrators at all levels, but in the English context it often should be translated by some lesser word [head, chief, chair- man, curator, etc.].) The goals of the Institute have not changed with the reor- 124 Komarov Botanical Institute ganization. Fedorov (3, pp. vil-vi) restates them for the modern period in this way (translation mine): All scientific activity of the Botanical Institute is directed toward elucidation of theoretical problems of botany and the application of scientific advances to the practices of the national economy and medicine... . . The staff of BIN [Botanical Institute] will increase its efforts to- ward the development of science for the welfare of our Homeland and for the building of communist society. PRESENT STAFF AND RESOURCES A fairly comprehensive picture of the present-day staff, resources, and scope of research activity of the Institute has already been developed in the course of discussing departmental growth and activity since 1932. It remains only for me to add some specialized information concerning several important features in the Institute’s present status that were not covered previously. The total staff, including professional and laboring forces, approaches 700 persons today, ranking the Institute among the largest institutions in the Soviet Academy’s Division of General Biology. Nearly 40 staff members hold the degree of Doctor of Biological Science and another 175 the degree of Candidate of Biological Science. * Thus there are over 200 members who hold a graduate degree, but these do not by any means comprise the whole scientific staff. A large cadre of 43This doctorate is earned only after long experience and is held by senior people; it is a sort of “super” Ph.D. The candidate degree is the common higher degree of all seniority levels and may be held by relatively young, inexperienced scholars. Its closest analog in the American system would seem to be a dissertation master’s degree, although its functional value in the Academy’s system would seem to be almost equivalent to that of a Ph.D. in America. Technically speaking, only the holder of the Doctor of Biologi- cal Science degree is entitled to be addressed “Doctor,” but this title is commonly applied to a “Candidate” as well (20, 32). The Institute: Present Staff and Resources 125 professional botanists in the Institute do not hold any graduate degree. Many of the Institute’s more than 200 living botanists have already been mentioned or discussed in previous sections, because their activities were germane to the account, but a larger number of them must of necessity go unnamed even though in many cases they are no less outstanding nor are their contributions any less significant. In particular, the experi- mental laboratories and scientists have been slighted here. This is due in the first place to the fact that the rich historical tradition of the St. Petersburg-Leningrad botanists is descrip- tive rather than experimental and in the second place to my own bias and lack of competence to judge the significance of the experimental trends that are developing. The full scientific staffs of the vascular and cryptogamic herbaria are given, as of 1964, 4 in Index Herbariorum (33, p. 100), and a somewhat more up-to-date roster (as of August 1964) of the vascular herbarium staff is given by Chater (32), listed according to the geographical sectors of the her- barium (see breakdown given on p. 127). He also lists the cur- rent members of Andrey Fedorov’s Laboratory of Systematics. The International Directory of Botanical Gardens (16, pp. 72-73) lists 11 of the prominent scientific members of the Botanic Garden’s staff as of 1963,44 but the full staff num- bered 83 already in 1960, about 16 of whom could be called “scientific” staff (31). The Botanical Museum had a staff of 16 in 1965, all named by Bakhteev and Chavchavadze in their recent paper on the Museum (13). To my knowledge there is no published roster of the entire current staff of the “Actually, these are dates of publication, and they are misleading. Un- doubtedly there was at least a 1-year lag between the time when the data were submitted and when they were published. For example, P. A. Baranov died in 1962 although he is still listed in the 1963 International Directory of Botanical Gardens. 126 Komarov Botanical Institute Institute, and I have no information for other departments. The scientific personnel or intelligentsia of the Soviet Acad- emy of Sciences, whatever their institutional post, fall into an elaborate and rigid academic-social stratification, in which, according to Vucinich (20), who devotes an interesting chapter to the social structure of the Academy in his book ““The Soviet Academy of Sciences,” a man’s status is determined by his academic degrees, scientific title, and administrative rank in the Academy. A fourth factor is his teaching affiliations in the universities or pedagogical institutes. A man who holds the doctorate and teaches in a university on a part-time basis 1s usually called a ‘‘Professor,” and this title sets him a notch above an ordinary “Doctor,” both in prestige and influence or responsibility, although it is not a rank in the Academy’s hierarchy. * In terms of academic degrees the scientific personnel fit into four categories, given in descending order: (1) doctors, (2) candidates, (3) college graduates (equivalent to American bachelor’s degree), and (4) persons without a college degree. In terms of scientific titles the Academy’s hierarchy from top to bottom is as follows: (1) academician, (2) correspond- ing member, (3) senior scientific worker, (4) junior scientific worker, and (5) technical or research assistant. Academicians and corresponding members, who must hold the doctorate and are very often professors as well, invariably occupy the highest administrative posts in institutes like the Komarov Botanical Institute. Senior scientific workers must hold the candidate degree, but junior scientific workers may or may not hold this degree. The assistants fall into several types, depending on whether they are working full time or are also part-time 45“The title ‘Professor’ is granted not by universities but by the Ministry of Higher Education. To be a Professor does not necessarily mean to be a college or university teacher but it almost always implies the possession of a Ph.D. degree” (20, p. 107). The Institute: Present Staff and Resources 27 students. Scientists who are academicians or corresponding members of one of the Academy’s provincial branches (EL, Armenian Academy of Sciences) do not rank with members of the national Academy, but they do stand above ordinary doc- tors or professor-doctors in the institutes. In the Komarov Bo- tanical Institute the laboratories and departments are not necessarily headed by doctors and professor-doctors, and many with a doctorate do not head any administrative unit. (20, 32) The herbarium resources have increased steadily over the years until today the number of specimens is approximately 6 million, including about 450,000 specimens of cryptogamic plants (mosses, lichens, fungi, algae). This huge national herbarium is certainly one of the largest in the world, prob- ably second only to the combined herbaria of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (England). From the international standpoint, the herbarium is by far the most important botanical resource that the Institute possesses, although the significance of its botanical library should not be underrated (see below). The herbarium has most of the classical exsic- catae (Boissier, etc.). The vascular herbarium is divided into geographical sections, which were established at the time of the Revolution (1917-18) essentially as they are today (see p. 39). These sections, housed in separate wings or floors of the main Herbarium-Library Building, their chief curators, and their relative sizes in terms of specimens are as follows (1, 4, Schischkin im 8, 32): (1) European USSR (Russia and Crimea), N. N. Tsvelev, 850,000 specimens; (2) Caucasus, An. A. Fedorov, 300,000; (3) Middle Asia (Uzbekistan, etc.), V. P. Botchantsev, 1,500,000; *° (4) Eastern and Cen- tral Asia (China, Mongolia, etc.), V. I. Grubov, 300,000; (5) 46A printing error (“1,000,5000”) in Vassilcezenko’s paper (4) makes it impossible to know whether he meant 1,000,500 or 1,500,000, but the latter is more logical considering the order of magnitude of the other figures given. 128 Komarov Botanical Institute Siberia and the Far East, S. J. Lipschitz, 500,000; (6) Gener- al Herbarium (all other parts of the world), M. E. Kirpicz- nikov, 2,000,000; and (7) Duplicate Division, S. K. Tchere- panov, 100,000 (waiting for distribution as of 1965). Types are kept separate. The herbarium is presently very crowded in its antiquated quarters and plans for expansion are being contemplated. The library resources (Lebedev in 8) of the Botanical Insti- tute and its predecessor, the Imperial Botanic Garden, have always comprised one of the finest botanical libraries in the world. In 1824, when the Garden’s library was founded, there were 1185 bound volumes; by 1875, the number had reached 16,584; by 1913, 38,420; by 1946, 145,000; and by 1956, 196,000. In 1964, Chater (32) estimated the number of vol- umes to be about 250,000, and Fédorov (3) said there were about 400,000 pieces of literature. Today, F édorov (correspon- dence 1966) gives the figure of 450,000 volumes. *”7 No matter how one reckons, the Komarov Botanical Library, covering all aspects of botany, theoretical and applied, represents by far the most complete botanical library in the Soviet Union, and abroad it has few peers. It surely compares quite favorably with such great collections as are found in the botanical li- braries of the British Museum (Natural History), Harvard University, and in Washington, D. C. (combined libraries of the Congress, Department of Agriculture, and Smithsonian Institution). A comparison of the Komarov Library’s foreign and domes- tic holdings was provided by Lebedev (8, p. 273) in 1957: “If one counts not according to bindings, but according to so- called publication units, then in 1956 there were 384,700 units, 259,750 of them foreign, preserved in the Library” (translation mine). Thus, about two-thirds of their total 47There is some question as to what constitutes a “volume” in these various estimations. The Institute: Present Staff and Resources 129 collection was foreign. Further, he stated that some 2000 domestic and 3000 foreign (i.e., three-fifths foreign) journals and serials were being taken in 1956. It would be interesting to have comparable figures for the best American botanical libraries. Those foreign visitors who have had occasion re- cently to use the Komarov Library extensively have found the non-Russian holdings to be remarkably good, although not without some surprising gaps (Chater [32]; Cronquist, person- al conversation 1966). As Chater (32) points out, the good foreign coverage is all the more remarkable because of the currency restrictions which force the Library to obtain nearly all of its foreign literature by exchange. These same difficulties, however, are faced by foreign libraries in trying to secure Russian literature. Two catalogs are maintained—the so-called ‘‘Basic’”’ and “Real”? Catalogs. The Basic Catalog is an author catalog divided into two sections, Russian and foreign. Russian publi- cations naturally are cataloged according to the Cyrillic al- phabet, while foreign publications are cataloged according to the Latin alphabet. Therefore, except for languages such as Chinese, the publications are handled in their original tongue, and the problem of a “‘transliteration language” is avoided. The Real Catalog is a subject index to the literature taken by the Komarov Library. This catalog is not complete, but it is nonetheless extensive. Commenting on the dual cataloging, Chater (32, p. 10) wrote: The catalogue, of over 1 1/4 million cards, is extremely compre- hensive and extensively cross-referenced. Since 1941 the cataloguing has been so thorough that every paper in every periodical volume entering the library has been catalogued under author and subject. It is tragic to find that because of staff shortages this uniquely valu- able procedure is having to be curtailed. . . . The curtailment will involve a rigorous selection of the articles 130 Komarov Botanical Institute to be cataloged, according to Director Fedorov (correspon- dence 1966). All periodicals will be examined, as before, but only the most pertinent articles will be cataloged. In the stacks, the books are arranged primarily by accession number. The stacks are not open to the general user, and it is necessary to make requests through the librarians for any materials desired. The Library’s resources include a large reference section (atlases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.) and a rich collection of herbals, including some exceedingly rare ones beginning with a copy of one of the first printed herbals, Ortus Sanitatus (1484), in the typography of Gutenberg. The extremely good 18th century collection includes a virtually complete set of Linnaean works. Somewhat foreign to the concept of a bo- tanical library in the United States, is the political, Marxist- Leninist section, maintained ‘‘to help the coworkers of the Institute who are increasing their own political education” (8, p27). From its founding the Library has had a series of remark- able head librarians: L. L. Fleri, founder (1825-45), E. K. Berg (1849-64), F. HE! Herder (1868-92), 1 Gaakiine: (1895-99), G. A. Nadson (1899-1929), I. A. OI (1929-41), D. V. Lebedev (1946-49, 1951-52), 78 and N. V. Tsvetkova (1953— ), who have written or fostered the writing of important bibliographical and historical books and papers concerning the Institute’s Library or other departments. The first printed catalog of the Library was published by Berg in 1852. He also published (1857) a valuable list of ttems in the Library’s early holdings that were not included in the first edition of Pritzel’s Thesaurus, and the value of this ‘“‘supple- ment’? was acknowledged in a later edition (1871, p. 23, see 48Lebedev was in charge of the entire library of the Soviet Academy of Sciences from 1949-51. He is still very active, serving at present as “Scientific Secretary” of the Institute. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute From Bot. Zhurn. 50(12).1965 B. A. Alekcanypos @atux X. Baxtees V. J. Aleksandrov (1906- ), Fatikh Kh. Bakhteev (1905- ), cytophysiologist. economic botanist. Photograph by Arthur Cronquist Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Ksrennit T’. boOpos Vigan T. Bacnapuenko Evgeniy G. Bobrov (1902- ), Ivan T. Vassilezenko (1905- ), taxonomist. taxonomist. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Maxkcumuipan M. lornep0ax EKsrenuit M. Jlappenko Maksimilian M. Hollerbach Evgeniy M. Lavrenko (1900- ), (1907- _), phycologist. geobotanist. Muxana C. Hapamnr Beesoaoy I. Canna Mikhail S. Navashin (1896-_ ), Vsevolod P. Savicz (1885- ), cytologist. lichenologist. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Photograph. by Arthur Cronquist Baazumup H. Cyrayes Codua T. Tamammst Vladimir N. Sukaczev (1880- Sophia G. Tamamschian, taxon- 1967), geobotanist. omist. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Courtesy Arthur Cronqutst Apmeu J. Taxraqaran Professor Takhtajan looking at hand- Armen L. Takhtajan (1910-_ ), some specimen of root-parasite, Oro- morphologist. banche gigantea. Courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute unless otherwise noted Photograph by Arthur Cronquist Bopuc A. Tuxomupos Anjpeli A. Pesopos Boris A. Tikhomirov (1909- ), Andrey A. Fédorov (1909- ), geobotanist. taxonomist. M. 1. Wkoapank Muxana C. Skopaen M. J. Shkolnik (1907- _), physi- Mikhail S. Yakovlev (1902- ), ologist. developmental morphologist. The Institute: National Role 131 entry under Berg). A revised, second edition of Berg’s catalog was published by Herder in 1866 and further supplements by Kling in 1899. (Lebedev in 8, pp. 271-277) NATIONAL ROLE From its inception in 1931, when it was created by the merger of Russia’s two leading botanical institutions of the time, the Komarov Botanical Institute has played a central role in Soviet botany and biology generally—as pioneer, organizer, coordinator, leader, educator, and inspirational focus of botan- ical research and development. Having been founded at a time when the Soviet Academy of Sciences was undergoing its first major reorientation after the Revolution, which shaped the Academy as a scientific tool for the achievement of the eco- nomic, industrial, and social goals of the State (see p. 175 and following), the Botanical Institute was called upon in particular to launch vast new programs aimed at the survey- ing, cataloging, mapping, and, ultimately, the exploiting of the Soviet Union’s vast plant resources, up until this time scarcely touched. These goals were well fitted to the traditional strengths—taxonomy, geography, ecology, sociology, and eco- nomics of plants—of the Institute’s predecessor institutions. Efforts in applied botany were redoubled, as epitomized by the creation of the Department of Plant Raw Materials and Botanical Prospecting, in 1934. To this day the Komarov Institute has retained its national leadership and responsibility in descriptive botany and in the science and technology of plant prospecting and utilization. The Government continues to charge the Institute with im- portant tasks in these areas (22). Fedorov (3, p. VII), speak- ing of the contemporary situation, writes: 132 Komarov Botanical Institute The majority of the co-workers of BIN [49] are investigating the problem of the ‘Biological bases for rational use, regeneration, and conservation of the plant world.’ In this problem, the Institute coordinates all botanical topics being investigated in the institutions of the Academies of Sciences of the union republics, and also in the chairs of botany in the universities and pedagogical institutes. (Translation mine.) Although the Institute has carried out large programs in ap- plied physiology and ecology, it has not distinguished itself in the past, particularly in the area of theoretical plant physiol- ogy, except in a few selected cases. Today, the leading physio- logical laboratories of the Soviet Union are in Moscow, as one can readily appreciate by noting the home institutions of the Soviet physiologists who attended the 10th International Botanical Congress (30). The hallmark of Russian scientific endeavor in the Soviet period, especially since the Academy’s reorganization in 1929, has been collective planning and programing imposed by the State through the intermediary of the Academy of Sciences or the Ministry of Higher Education. In the realm of botany this general approach and focus has placed a strong emphasis on colossal projects and broadscale collaborative research lead- ing to multivolumed floras, handbooks, manuals, etc., which have important economic applications. Even an effort like the Flora SSSR Project, seeming on first thought to be too theoretical and too long range for the immediate technological problems of agriculture and industry and hence not a justifi- able endeavor, was a well-conceived part of the Academy’s general mission to inventory and exploit the Soviet Union’s natural resources (5, 9, 10, 20). The Komarov Botanical Institute has been the Academy’s arm for the collective planning and programing of much 49BIN is the Russian abbreviation for the Botanical Institute: [B]otani- chesky [IN |stitut. (BMH: Borannuecknn MWHerntyr.) The Institute: National Role 133 botanical research. Under specific mandates from, and the general sponsorship of, the Academy’s Division of General Biology, the Institute has been instigator and convener of numerous “All-Union” planning conferences. These are called from time to time to assess the progress of Soviet botany, chart new programs and goals, and marshal the botanical forces to achieve these goals. Each conference is centered about a parti- cular theme or discipline (e.g., geobotany, plant introduction), and it is attended by specialists in that field from all parts of the Soviet Union. Examples of some early conferences held at the Komarov Institute that led to important new collabora- tive efforts are: First All-Union Conference of Geobotanists and Plant Taxonomists (1931); First All-Union Conference on the History of the Flora and Vegetation of the USSR (1938); First All-Union Conference of Botanic Gardens of the USSR (1940); and First All-Union Conference on Plant Anatomy, Morphology, and Embryology (1947) (2, 3, 8). These con- ferences are on the order of symposia, with prepared papers by authoritative specialists, which in some respects are analo- gous to symposia sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences or the American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science, and other scientific societies at their annual meetings, except that such American symposia are sel- dom required or empowered to organize collective programs. Many other symposia, covering all phases of the Institute’s research, have been and are still being sponsored by the vari- ous departments and laboratories of the Institute; almost invariably some concrete project is evolved for future work. These symposia are usually reported in Botanichesky Zhurnal. Of particular interest among recent ‘“‘state-of-the-art’’ meet- ings held at the Institute are the so-called ‘‘seminars’’ on geobotany—extended study institutes held in the Department of Geobotany. The first was conducted in 12 sessions between 134 Komarov Botanical Institute October 1961 and May 1962 (34), and the second was con- ducted in 19 sessions between November 1962 and May 1963 (G5). The Institute’s botanists have long dominated the leadership of the national ‘‘All-Union Botanical Society” and the editor- ship of its official organ, Botanichesky Zhurnal (see pp. 51, 169). Like all units of the Academy of Sciences, the Botanical Institute has always been an integral part of the Soviet system of higher education, and it has played a major national role in the training of scientific and technical specialists in the botanical and related sciences. Many of the staff have held pro- fessorial positions and lectured part time at Leningrad State University or other pedagogical institutes around the city. The Institute’s laboratories and collections are used by graduate students who are conducting research and writing disserta- tions under the direction of the staff, and the Academic Council of the Institute has the authority to confer the degree of Candi- date of Biological Science and to recommend for the degree of Doctor of Biological Science (see footnote on p. 124). Two kinds of graduate students study in the Institute (2, 3, 8, 20, 32). Aspirants are engaged in a full-time program of training and research leading to the candidate degree. Sors- katels (‘‘competitors’’) are staff members who also are working part time toward an advanced degree and are expected to take more than the usual time to complete their program and write their dissertation. The candidate program, called aspi- rantura, normally takes 3 years and requires teaching and research experience as well as a dissertation. Doctoral studies involve no formal training program. Any scientific worker of any botanical institution who holds the candidate degree can prepare a doctoral dissertation for de- fense before the Academic Council of the Institute without The Institute: National Role 135) undergoing special training or examinations. Thus the can- didate degree is the highest degree awarded for formal graduate training. Hundreds of Soviet botanists have done all or part of their graduate work at the Institute, and a very large number of candidate and doctoral dissertations have been written and defended here. At present the Academic Council accepts up- ward of 20 dissertations a year in fulfillment of the require- ments for either the candidate or doctoral degree. Some of these graduates stay on at the Institute, joining the staff, but most take up posts in the many provincial institutions. In the postwar period more than 200 candidate degrees and nearly 100 doctoral degrees have been earned at the Komarov Bo- tanical Institute. A program of popular education 1s carried on by means of the temporary and permanent displays or plantings of the Botanical Museum, Botanic Garden, and outdoor park- arboretum, altogether attracting upward of 200,000 visitors annually in recent years, including many school classes, and by means of public lectures at the Institute and at various places in the city, given by members of the staff (3). As men- tioned earlier, the new Museum building and exhibits were opened in 1960, and the Institute now has a botanical muse- um second to none in the Soviet Union. More than a half- dozen of the Botanic Garden’s greenhouses and conserva- tories are open to the public, and they feature various geo- graphical and systematic groupings of plants, including re- presentative collections of tropical palms, aroids, ferns, orchids, and bromeliads. The outdoor collections are well mapped and described in Zamyatnin’s little guidebook (11), which is designed to be self-guiding and has appended a com- plete list of the outdoor woody plantings as of 1960. Both on a local and on a national scale, the Institute’s staff 136 Komarov Botanical Institute is perennially called upon to render public service in a con- sultative capacity, for example in connection with legal and medical problems. An enormous amount of identification work is done in the Herbarium each year as a public service. FLORA SSSR In mid-1964, the thirtieth and final volume of Flora Uni- onis Rerumpublicarum Socialisticarum Sovieticarum (Flora URSS) was issued to the botanical world, ending one of the most ambitious floristic projects in the long history of botany. The first volume of this Flora, known in Russian as Flora SSSR* and in English as the ‘Flora of the USSR,” ap- peared in 1934, almost exactly 30 years before. Thirty-five years elapsed from the initial planning to the publication of the final volume; about 33 years were required for the actual writing; and the 30 volumes were published at the average rate of one per year, despite the political turmoils of the late 1930s and the devastating interruption of World War II. Seldom if ever has a flora of such detail and scope been written for such a large sector of the world. Today the borders of the Soviet Union embrace nearly one-fifth of the earth’s land-mass, including the greater part of the boreal and temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere. According to Flora SSSR, the native vascular flora of this far-flung region is comprised of 17,520 species belonging to 1676 genera and 160 families. This represents an average content per volume of about 600 species, 5O genera, and 5 families. “°propa CCCP (Flora SSSR) is the official Russian title and appears on the Russian title page only as an abbreviation. However, it is derived from the full Russian name of the Soviet Union: Cow3 Copercknx ComumaamcTaueckux Pecny6ank (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik). An Alphabetical Index to the 30 volumes was published in 1964; it was compiled by A. E. Matsenko, L. I. Ivanina, and T. G. Leonova under the editorship of E. G. Bobrov and N. N. Tsvelev. The Institute: Flora SSSR 137 Altogether, 22,000 pages of text and 1250 plates, composed of 10,000 original drawings, were published in the 30 volumes. More than 1500 species were described as new to science, as well as scores ofnew genera. The usefulness of this Flora extends far beyond the boundaries of the USSR. Not only does it stand as perhaps the most exhaustive and com- prehensive work of all time on the flora of continental Asia, but it also is a critical work for all students of the circum- polar arctic flora. (5, 9, 10, 36) The Flora Project—its history, problems, and general signi- ficance—is discussed at length in the very interesting recent articles by Bobrov (9, 10) and Takhtajan, Tolmatchev, and Fedorov (5). All are prominent botanists who are or have been affiliated with the Komarov Botanical Institute, *! where the Project was administered and most of the work was done. Except perhaps for Takhtajan, all have taken some part in the production of the Flora. However, E. G. Bobrov (1902-_ ) has had much the more intimate association, serving as “‘secre- tary” of the Editorial Committee from the beginning to the end. He discharged the routine organizational chores of keep- ing the Flora moving. He coedited most of the later volumes, including 10 with Schischkin, and was among the most proli- fic contributing authors. Without doubt Professor Bobrov 1s one of the real heroes of this Flora, overshadowed only perhaps by Komarov and Schischkin (see later). He 1s the only func- tionary of the original committee who has survived the Project from beginning to end and now lives to appraise and enjoy the fruits of those 33 hard years. But for his organizing genius and lifelong devotion, the Flora may well have fallen short of the mark. Today, at 65, Bobrov is a ‘‘grand old man’”’ of taxonomy at the Institute. One of its least heralded scholars, he is at the 5tAt present, Tolmatchev (1903- ) is a professor at Leningrad State Uni- versity, in charge of the Chair of Botany since 1960, but he is a member of the Scientific Council of the Botanical Institute with which he maintains close ties. 138 Komarov Botanical Institute same time one of its finest and most distinguished, having made one of the greatest contributions of the past 35 years to its programs. Bobrov’s first report (9) on the Flora Project was published in English (Nature, March 13, 1965), his second (10) in Russian (Bot. Zhurn., Oct. 1965). Both reports are based on the paper he read on May 29, 1964, before a special meeting at the Komarov Botanical Institute celebrating the completion of Flora SSSR, and they are largely the same, although the differences are interesting. He concerns himself primarily with a factual account of history, and it is obvious that he was an insider to the Project all along and that his heart was in the center of the work. It is a touching story, a vivid recounting of a sentimental journey. In the Nature article he concludes in this manner: Flora URSS 1s thus completed. We remember all our colleagues, many of them long dead, who contributed to its achievement. We have done what we could. We welcome the young botanists and wish them success. Fecimus quod potuimus. Vivant sequentes. The Russian version (in Bot. Zbhurn.) 1s even more expressive. In it he adds the comment that the names of his departed colleagues are “immortalized” by their parts in the Flora. “To us,” he writes, “befell the high honor of seeing ‘Flora SSSR’ to the finish—the greatest botanical endeavor of our century.” By contrast, Takhtajan, Tolmatchev, and Fédorov were relative outsiders to the Flora Project, although the latter two contributed important treatments to the Flora. Their joint article on the Flora—the lead article 1n the October 1965 issue of Botanichesky Zhurnal, appearing just ahead of Bobrov’s paper, which, however, was submitted almost a year earlier than theirs—is a more philosophical discussion of floristics in general but with specific reference to Flora SSSR, its character, The Institute: Flora SSSR 139 history, technical and theoretical problems, and its intellectual influence on Soviet botany. Having less vested interest than Bobrov, they are able to take a more detached view and to argue objectively the strengths and weaknesses of the Ko- marovian concepts undergirding the Flora. Takhtajan and Tolmatchev have been active teachers at Leningrad State Uni- versity, and no doubt their teaching has been responsible for their great interest in taxonomic theory. Bobrov also stresses the need for new methods, but he comes out more clearly in defense of Komarovian methods as having continuing viability. Background The first attempt to publish a complete flora of the vast regions of Imperial Russia was made by the celebrated natu- ralist Pallas in the late 18th century. His sumptuous Flora Rossica (1784-1815; 2 vols. in 3 pts.) was never finished, however (p. 44). In the mid-19th century Ledebour published his excellent 4-volume Flora Rossica (1842-53), which in- cluded all known Russian species. This classic work at once became the standard compendium. The idea of preparing an up-to-date work to replace Ledebour’s Flora was first pro- posed at the close of the 19th century by Academician Kor- shinsky, director of the Botanical Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, who initiated a pro- gram at the Museum that was never to gain sufficient support and momentum to carry it through to completion (p. 58). Already in Korshinsky’s tme Ledebour’s Flora was nearly 50 years old and hopelessly incomplete for ordinary identfi- cations of Russian plants. Only some 6500 species were described in this work—hardly more than a third of the native vascular flora known today. Moreover, his Flora was written in Latin and could be used only by scholars (2, 8). 140 Komarov Botanical Institute Although Korshinsky’s grandiose plan did not succeed, it did stimulate a whole new cycle of floristic research. In the closing years of the last century and the early years of the present, a series of important local and regional floras were initiated, which, although not all completed, began to fill the gaps and assume crucial places in the growing shelf of floris- tic literature on Russia (5, 9). Some of these floras were real classics that still are very useful. The greatest stimulant of this period came from the collections of the various far-ranging explorations of the Transmigration Bureau (p. 30) in the early 1900s (2, 8). World War I and the Revolution brought a prolonged and serious interruption to the floristic research that was now under way, and it was not until the mid-1920s, after the strife of the civil war was over and normal activities were being resumed, that the feverish prewar pace was re- stored. In fact, floristic researches were begun on an even larger scale than before, because of the increased demand for basic knowledge about Russia’s natural resources. The mo- mentum generated during this second cycle of activity has kept Soviet botany on a strong floristic course right down to the present time, although in recent years the cause of floristics has definitely begun to wane (5, 32). Fedtschenko’s Plan In the late 1920s, Russian botanists, emboldened by the greatly increased demand for the results of floristic exploration and spurred by new political pressures, turned again to the idea of producing a comprehensive, definitive flora to replace Ledebour’s Flora Rossica. Shortly, the concept and plan for Flora SSSR were born. In 1929, the First Five-Year Plan (1928-32) was published, and among the several projects it assigned to the Herbarium of the Principal Botanic Garden The Institute: Flora SSSR 141 in Leningrad was the task of developing a detailed plan for the preparation of a ‘Flora of the USSR” (1.e., Flora SSSR) (9). B. A. Fedtschenko was chief curator, and to him this task must have been a welcome challenge. Ever since he had taken charge of the Herbarium in 1905 he had championed floristic exploration and had devoted much effort and care to building up the collections, which by now totaled more than 3 million specimens. He was clearly looking toward the day when a Flora SSSR could be written. His dedicated efforts over 25 years to build up a well-curated herbarium represent- ing the plants not only of all parts of Russia but of the whole world had contributed in large measure to the propitious con- ditions that now faced the collective of authors on the eve of this monumental undertaking. And behind his own 25 years were nearly 200 years of previous floristic discovery and collecting. The groundwork had been well laid, and, as Bobrov (9) aptly points out to all who might misunderstand, this Flora which is now finished was not created from nothing. Without those two-and-one-quarter centuries of prior effort by dedicated and farsighted men of science, the great national treasury of specimens and books would not have been avail- able in 1929 to begin this task that so urgently needed doing. The idea of Flora SSSR was a big concept by any standards and as such it was electrifying, but to seasoned professionals like Fedtschenko it must also have been awesome, filling them with doubt and fear. In any event, Flora SSSR had be- come a public goal with the proclamation of the Five-Year Plan, and whatever misgivings the botanists of the Herbarium may have had, they now had to lay these misgivings aside and join the project. Announcement of the Flora Project naturally precipitated much active discussion, which continued for many months during 1929-30, and soon the botanists at the Herbarium, in other departments of the Botanic Garden, and 142 Komarov Botanical Institute throughout the Soviet Union became genuinely enthusiastic. Bobrov (9) describes how authors were enlisted. The year 1930 was spent pledging authors. The procedure sounds al- most bizarre. Like passing a flame from torch to torch, a person, once having accepted the “‘challenge” to write some treatment, would turn quickly to the next in line and challenge him to contribute another treatment, until all had accepted ‘mutual voluntary pledges” to prepare some part(s). The Russian version (10) reads quite differently, however, and seems to suggest that the pledges were something less than vol- untary. Here Bobrov speaks of the widespread “‘socialist rival- ries” and hints at the need for the botanists to attest publicly to their enthusiasm for their assignment by making a show through the mutual “socialist challenges.” Apparently, every “volunteer” had an obligation to enlist at least one other “volunteer.” In January 1931, Fedtschenko formally submitted a 5- page memorandum detailing a concrete plan for the Flora to a local “productivity conference,” chaired by Bobrov; V. I. Kreczetovicz, who was later to prepare the treatment for the genus Carex (vol. 3), was secretary. Basing his calculations on the assumption that the total flora of the USSR would number about 15,000 species—an amazingly accurate estimate of the final total (17,520) considering how poorly known much of the USSR was at that ttme—Fedtschenko anticipated a work of 16 volumes, each consisting of two parts. The distribution of species in the USSR was to be indicated according to 30 phytogeographic divisions, and 1500-1800 original drawings were planned. The Flora was to be completed in 5 years (1931-35), and this called for some hard arithmetic. The Herbarium’s author-pool totaled 23—14 “botanists” and 9 “scientific workers’ —and Fedtschenko had estimated how many species these 23 authors could write up in a year’s time. The Institute: Flora SSSR 143 Every botanist would be able to prepare the text for at least 100 species a year—JO during regular working hours and an- other 50 during compulsory overtime—and every scientific worker would be able to write up at least 50 species a year, according to the same formula. Actually, Fedtschenko as- sumed that many of the authors would exceed these figures because he calculated that his collective could prepare descrip- tions for 2500 species a year or 12,500 in 5 years. This left 2500 species for specialists at other institutions to do during the 5-year period. The whole work was to be directed toward the needs of the economy by including a section after each species dealing with economic uses (9, 10). Birth of Project Fedtschenko’s memorandum was turned over to an ad hoc committee (Bobrov, Iljin, Juzepczuk, Kreczetovicz, Voronov) for detailed examination, and its recommendations were re- ported back to a larger session of the “productivity conference” in early February 1931 (9). The committee recommended that the projected size of the work be halved—to eight two- part volumes; that the species descriptions be kept short so that two or three could fit on one printed page; and that the original illustrations be kept to about 1000 (10). Room was allowed in their thinking for a much larger flora (up to 25,000 species), and they suggested that botanists from all over the Soviet Union be solicited to participate. The Project was to be administered by an active editorial committee of sev- en to nine botanists from the Botanic Garden. At this enlarged productivity conference, Academician B. A. Keller, who was soon to head the newly formed Botanical Institute, suggested that a detailed draft proposal be placed before the First All- Union Conference of Geobotanists and Plant Taxonomists, to 144 Komarov Botanical Institute be held in 2 weeks (February 25, 1931? ). An urgent “shock brigade” (Bobrov, Fedtschenko, Juzepczuk, Kreczetovicz, Pet- rov, Roshevitz, Voronov) was appointed to work up the de- tailed draft and to prepare the “Map of the Regions of the Flora of the USSR.” They were instructed to consult with Academician V. L. Komarov, who had served as head of the sister Department of Living Plants at the Principal Botanic Garden since 1917 and had only the past year been elected to succeed Borodin as director of the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences. The All-Union Conference (Feb. 25—Mar. 2, 1931) heard two reports, prepared by the “shock brigade.”’ The first, ““Ob- jectives and Tasks of the Flora URSS,” was given by Ko- marov, and the second, ‘““The Procedure of Work for the Flora URSS,” by Fedtschenko (9). The Conference, which also dealt with much other business, approved the Flora Proj- ect and put the great effort under way. On March 27, at a special meeting of the Flora Project, Komarov was nom- inated by Keller to be editor-in-chief and was elected. Shortly thereafter Bobrov was appointed secretary of the editorial committee. Initially, the editorial committee included repre- sentatives from 11 cities of the Soviet Union, and it was intended that this committee would be a working committee. However, complications soon arose, and the idea of com- mittee leadership had to be abandoned (10). Takhtajan et al. (5) blame some of the problems of the Flora Project on inadequate organization. Too much work fell on too few people. Basically, the organization consisted only of the editor-in-chief and the secretary. Although each volume was signed by one or two so-called “editors of the volume,” in addition to the contributing authors, Takhtajan et al. claim 52The year of this meeting is incorrectly given as 1932 in the official chronology of Lebedev (2, 8) and in the paper by Fedorov (3). The Institute: Flora SSSR 145 that their editing work was limited. Perhaps this was true in most cases, but it seems clear that the work of Bobrov and B. K. Schischkin as editors of volumes was substantial. Takhtajan et al. attribute the lack of uniformity in space allotted to species (varying from part of a page in early volumes to two full pages in later ones), and the slowness with which the Flora came out, to the inadequate editorial organization. Misman- agement reached such a point, they say, that some Latin diag- noses printed in the Addenda of the Flora were published a second time in one of the taxonomic periodicals of the Institute. The second half of 1931 was spent working out the mechan- ics of the Project and preparing sample descriptions. A rigid program was planned in the beginning for the contents and sequences of the volumes, and according to Bobrov (9) this program was strictly adhered to throughout the whole Pro- ject. It should be observed, however, that the later volumes did not come out in sequence, although perhaps it was planned this way from the beginning. Several volumes were always in various stages of preparation simultaneously, but “particular attention was always directed to the one or two volumes that were next in turn.”’ The merger of the Principal Botanic Garden and the Bo- tanical Museum in late 1931, continuing for 5 months into 1932, interrupted Flora activities for a time and placed the Project in a new context. The whole idea of Flora SSSR had been conceived at the Garden, and, until the merger began, the planning had been conducted by Fedtschenko and his staff in the Garden’s herbarium. Once it became known in 1931 that the merger would take place the theater and cast for Flora SSSR changed somewhat. Komarov, who as academician and former head of the Botanical Museum (and its herbarium) outranked Fedtschenko, was to become the head of the newly formed Botanical Institute’s Department of Systematics and 146 Komarov Botanical Institute Geography of Vascular Plants, which administered the com- bined herbaria. It must have been in anticipation of this merger that he was made editor-in-chief of the Flora. At any rate Komarov quickly came to dominate the Flora Project. Komarov was a teacher and theoretician whose taxonomic philosophy was to become the hallmark of Flora SSSR. Ac- cording to Bobrov (9), Komarov’s students ‘‘formed the major- ity, as well as the most active, of the authors,’ and he provided the “progressive method of investigation.”’ Fedtschenko, on the other hand, is featured by Bobrov as the costar of the Project because of his more than 25 years of background activity in the herbarium which made the Flora possible. Komarov con- tinued as supervisory editor until his death in 1945. After- wards, Schischkin carried this responsibility although he was never so credited in the volumes that were issued. Altogether, Schischkin’s contributions were enormous (pp. 75, 156). Early Work In the spring of 1932, after the merger was completed and the botanists could get down to the serious business of research again, work on Flora SSSR finally began in earnest. The manuscript for the first volume was placed in the hands of the printer in December of that same year. This volume was released in early 1934, as the manuscript for volume 2 was go- ing to the printer (2, 8). Of the seven contributors to the first volume—Bobrov, [ljin, Komarov, Krishtofovich, Fedtschen- ko, Fomin, and Juzepczuk—only Bobrov, who was 32 in 1934, and Ijin, who was 45, are still living today. Schischkin’s long and intimate association with the Flora began with volume 2, to which 14 authors contributed. This volume was issued in late 1934. Schischkin was to sign nearly every succeeding volume either as editor, author, or both. The ground rules The Institute: Flora SSSR 147 for Flora SSSR were enunciated by Komarov in the preface to volume | (37). Depending on available funds, it was hoped that the Flora could be published at the rate of 1-3 volumes per year. At first the writing moved along rapidly, and some authors com- pleted their manuscripts far ahead of schedule. Kreczetovicz had prepared a treatment of 400 species of Carex in a record time of 2 years. By the time that volume 2 appeared the man- uscripts for the next two volumes were already in the hands of the printers. Then bottlenecks in publication developed and other problems arose. The initial success of the Project filled the authors with new zest, but quite naturally the work began to uncover unforeseen obstacles, and conflicts arose over policy and especially over the general concept of the Flora (see below). Bobrov (9) indicates that there were “many incidents,” which “were always relatively easily settled, since the entire work was being done under the gaze of all authors, and under the attentive supervision of the productivity conference which assembled once or twice a month to discuss the work in progress.” In his Russian report Bobrov (10) gives us slightly more insight into the nature of these conflicts. Serious original re- search was discouraged, and those who ignored this official attitude often found themselves in deep trouble if their studies had turned up much new material and resulted in radical departures from previous treatments. For this reason S. A. Nevsky’s treatment of the Tribe Hordeae (barleys) required a long time for approval, and V. I. Kreczetovicz’s treatment of Carex for volume 3 was held up 2 years (10). He had divided the 400 species into 47 sections, which departed radically from the previous classification by Kiikenthal, and he pleaded repeatedly with the editors to let him treat the 47 sections as separate genera. But Editor-in-Chief Komarov was implacably 148 Komarov Botanical Institute opposed to this (fortunately!), and finally 2 years later Kreczet- ovicz came around to his point of view. Even then Kreczeto- vicz’s arrangement was still so different that the editors felt constrained to warn the public in their preface to the volume: ‘Independence in scientific investigation is important; the people using our Flora should therefore not complain about the unfamiliar order in the classification of sedges.” The Flora Project was conducted at all times under the watchful eye of the Communist Party and was constantly being held up for public scrutiny (9, 10). The 1931 All-Union Con- ference of Geobotanists and Plant Taxonomists was controlled to some degree by several vigilante communist groups, and at one of the productivity conference meetings certain representa- tives of the “‘Com-Academy”’ proposed that the Flora Project be run by the organization that was producing the Soviet Encyclopedia (10), because the ‘“Com-Academy” thought that the Flora should have an ideological side to it. The most serious threat, according to Bobrov (10), came in 1936 when certain persons charged that the Flora was being written ac- cording to the “Fascist System,” because the editors had announced in the preface to volume 7 that Engler’s System of arranging plant families was adopted for the Flora. At the outset there was considerable divergence of opinion about the nature of Flora SSSR (9, 10). Komarov argued for preparing a synoptical flora, drawn together largely from existing materials and information, because time was too short to prepare monographic treatments based on new fieldwork and critical research. Fedtschenko did not agree altogether with this point of view, and Bobrov (9) stresses that the ‘‘over- whelming majority of authors were vigorously opposed to writing surveys and were inclined to make a critical review of the material.” Komarov’s viewpoint prevailed initially, and the accounts of the Pteridophyta, Coniferae, and some genera The Institute: Flora SSSR 149 of Gramineae in the first volumes were merely synopses. Gradually, however, the will of the majority began to prevail; the authors simply did not heed the official concept, and pro- ceeded to study their groups in critical detail. ‘“This, of course, required far more work and time. Consequently it became clear that the five-year period initially planned for the work should be at least doubled, or more probably trebled”’ (9). The authors knew, after all, how little was known about the Rus- sian flora, and they could not in good conscience stop short of all-out revisional or monographical efforts in most genera. Fortunately perhaps for all concerned, the charter participants were optimistic, and none was able to foresee just how long (33 years) and how difficult the whole project was to be. What started out to be a brief conspectus of the Russian flora proved in the end to be a major systematic treatise, almost monographic in character, with hierarchical classification, complete keys, extensive synonymy and literature citations, long descriptions of the taxa, some taxonomic discussions, geographic distribution, flowering time, and notes on fossil records, economic uses, etc. Starting with volume 2, Latin diagnoses for new taxa described in the Russian text were appended to the end of each volume, so as to conform to international conventions on nomenclature. Komarov’s Leadership and Methods The guiding taxonomic philosophy throughout the prepara- tion of Flora SSSR was that of Komarov, who sketched his philosophy in the preface to volume | and later articulated it at length in a prize-winning paper, mentioned previously (see p. 90). As chief scientific editor and mentor during the crucial early years, he authoritatively set a course from which his suc- cessors did not deviate appreciably. Komarov introduced the 150 Komarov Botanical Institute geographical criterion into Russian taxonomy and developed what Bobrov (9) terms the “morphological-geographical method.” To Komarov the geographic race was a real biologi- cal entity which he regarded as the species, and he promoted what in essence was a geographical concept of species. Integral to this concept was his presupposition that the species is the indivisible primary unit in nature (5). Recognition of local, morphologically homogeneous races as distinct species followed naturally from his insistence on monotypic species. On this point, Bobrov (9) writes, “The most characteristic feature of the Flora URSS is the monotypic concept of the species.” A companion tenet of Komarov’s species concept was his belief in the ‘‘series’” as a group of genetically related, geo- graphically vicariant species. Accordingly, a specialist working up a taxonomic group for the Flora would first describe the basic racial units or “‘species,” and then if the group was large and diverse he would attempt to arrange these species in two or more “‘series’” expressing their true relationships. Komarov believed that classification should by phylogenetic, and he encouraged efforts to group species of common ancestry into ever larger hierarchical taxa. All the large genera in the Flora are divided into one or more infrageneric categories, and numerous new subgenera, sections, subsections, and series are described and typified. Schischkin (im 8), writing about the extensive delineation of new series, said that this feature represents the original contribution of Flora SSSR to system- atics in general. Application of Komarov’s species concept led to much taxo- nomic splitting. Morphological variants were either ignored or elevated to species. With one or two exceptions (e.g., Bobrov’s account of Trifolium), subspecies are unrecognized in the Flora, and varieties are recognized in only a few genera throughout the work. Thus, in general it 1s a flora without The Institute: Flora SSSR 151 infraspecific taxa. By contrast Komarov himself had used varieties in his earlier floristic work. Concerning the policy of the Flora on intraspecific taxa, Schischkin (in 8, p. 91) wrote: The complicated nomenclature being used in many publications in the West, according to which the species is divided into sub- species, the subspecies into varieties, the varieties into smaller taxo- nomic entities, was not accepted, as it did not correspond to the established species concept in the ‘Flora.’ (Translation mine.) In many genera, the application of the morphological- geographical method resulted in a sound, practical taxonomy delineating a credible if supernumerary list of species. The average results are probably about the same as if a straight morphological criterion had been applied, although introduc- tion of a geographic criterion helped in no small number of cases to justify species that on purely morphological grounds would have been defenseless. The method foundered where any strictly classical method would have run aground, namely, in groups beset by complicated biological problems such as apo- mixis and hybridization. Some would criticize Juxip’s 785 species of apomictic Hieracium, for example, although within the framework of the method and given the enormous prob- lems his treatment is probably not unreasonable. The wholesale use of series in the Flora had the effect of transferring many real biological problems one step above the species level. As Takhtajan et al. (5) point out, many of the series were nothing more than single, polymorphic species. Thus, for working purposes, the series of Flora SSSR are often the only useful primary units. This is especially true when using Flora treatments in connection with studies of circum- polar plants, because noted foreign specialists of the same period (E. Hulten, N. Polunin, others) have adhered to rela- tively broad species concepts in their works. It should be men- tioned, however, that Tolmatchev is adopting similarly broad 152 Komarov Botanical Institute views in his ‘‘Arctic Flora of the USSR,” which has begun to appear (p. 597). Soviet botanists themselves have freely admitted the excesses to which some authors carried the Komarovian method, and they have been critical of those, who, in the interest of species- splitting, lost sight of the “true” Komarovian concepts (5, 9, 10, 36). Takhtajan er al. (5) note that the uncritical elevation of all forms to species often produced “‘atomic”’ species which in fact were subraces of less significance than ecotypes; Komar- ov did not intend this. The use of series was very inconsistent from one author to another; some authors used them only mechanically, with quite artificial results. Bobrov (10) la- ments this and says that those authors should have refrained from using series, because they only succeeded in masking the true genetic relationships and in casting doubt on the method itself. Takhtajan er al. believe that the time has come to reeval- uate the taxonomic rank of many species that have been described by Soviet botanists during recent decades. The series is still a useful category, but they believe it should be reserved for closely related species that are well differentiated morpho- logically and genetically, not for poorly differentiated, vicariant geographic races. Both Bobrov and Takhtajan et al. consider the Komarov- ian method to have been progressive and right for Flora SSSR. Because Komarov broke away from the purely mor- phological criteria of previous Russian taxonomic work and focussed attention on geography and evolution, one must agree that his method was progressive for his time. Takhtajan et al. stress that the great positive contribution of his approach was that it stimulated detailed study of the native flora of the USSR and brought to light many interesting local popula- tions that otherwise would have been overlooked. Bobrov (9) The Institute: Flora SSSR 153 makes an especially cogent argument for the geographical emphasis of the Komarovian method: The fact that the morphological-geographical method was gener- ally adopted, and is still developing in the U.S.S.R., is by no means fortuitous. Those who live and work in the U.S.S.R., this im- mense country stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Arctic tundras to the sub-tropical zone, cannot but think in terms of geography. One cannot avoid meditating on the distribu- tion of plants over this vast territory, seeing actual species-races which have become differentiated geographically in the course of evolution, proceeding not only in time but also in space. He then goes on to say that Soviet botanists have themselves to blame for the fact that the Komarovian concepts on which Flora SSSR 1s based are so misunderstood abroad, ‘‘since we have never taken the trouble to expound our concepts in suf- ficiently coherent form for our foreign colleagues.”’ In defense of Soviet botanists and their work in Flora SSSR it must be emphasized that the Komarovian method did not lead to the extreme excesses that one might have expected in a floristic study of such a vast, relatively unex- plored territory. Less than 10 percent of the total number of species (1500:17,520) were described as new in the course of the 33-year research, and this is a modest figure consider- ing how little was known about much of the native flora at the outset. To be sure, many previously described segregates were recognized which otherwise might have been combined, but here the method was ‘‘conservative’ in the sense that premature judgments were not passed on poorly known species—the species were simply allowed to stand. Thus, in retrospect the morphological-geographical focus of Flora SSSR seems right and necessary. It was necessary in the first round to elucidate the details before the broad trends could emerge in a second round. Perhaps the only real regret in this connection 1s that the task was not consistently done, and today, 154 Komarov Botanical Institute therefore, the racial composition of the Russian flora is not completely worked out and never will be, Bobrov thinks (9). The completion of Flora SSSR brought the end to an era in Soviet taxonomy, the Komarovian Era, or at least so it seems to an outsider even though Soviet botanists would not fully agree. Through the medium of the Flora, his teaching, and his activities in the Botanical Institute and the Academy at large, Komarov stamped his taxonomic philosophy on a whole generation of taxonomists and profoundly influenced the course of descriptive botany in the Soviet Union for more than three decades. Among his more illustrious disciples the late S. J. Juzepezuk especially should be mentioned. There were years when Komarov’s ideas seemed to take on the aura of dogma, although his views certainly were not shared by all Soviet taxonomists. The eminent student of the Siberian flora, M. G. Popov, held very different concepts, and there was N. I. Vavilov’s *3 school of thought which in many respects was diametrically opposed to Komarovian ideas. Also, such noted Russian botanists as A. A. Grossheim and B. M. Kozo- Poljansky took issue with some of Komarov’s philosophy. Thus it probably is not fair to equate Komarov’s influence in Soviet taxonomy with Pavlov’s in biomedical science (38) or Lysenko’s in genetics and agriculture. At the same time it can hardly be denied that at least in some quarters Komarov’s teachings were treated as authoritative, and his philosophy took on the character of an “‘ism.’”’ For example, Bobrov (9) writes: The authors of the Flora URSS clearly realize that the methodo- logical basis of their work is dialectical materialism. They realize that Komarov’s concept of species developed from pure Darwin- ism. They also, of course, understand that Darwinism and Marxism 33Vavilov, N.I. 1951. The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated plants. Selected writings of N.I. Vavilov, translated by K. Starr Chester. Chronica Botanica 13: 1-366. The Institute: Flora SSSR 155 are, as it were, two sides of the same coin. They know, too, that their method of investigation cannot become outdated, since Dar- winism itself cannot become outdated. Preparation of the Flora naturally required a certain de- gree of uniformity in species concept, and, therefore, it is not surprising that Komarov’s influence was greatest in the Bo- tanical Institute where the major part of the work was going on. Furthermore, his fertile ideas added an all-important sus- taining intellectual dimension to research that otherwise could have become hopeless drudgery. In the end it was probably the strong, by tmes almost dogmatic influence of Komarov that gave the Flora unity and kept the Project from falling apart during all the difficult years. Takhtajan et al. give full credit to the timeliness of Komar- ov’s morphological-geographical methods and stress his great contribution to the general development of Soviet taxonomy and especially to Flora SSSR, but at the same time they take issue with his monotypic species concept as being outmoded today in the light of modern population genetics and biosys- tematic research. They believe that a biological concept of species is necessary and call for recognition that some species consist of many geographic races, ecotypes, or other kinds of polymorphic populations. They remind Soviet botanists that Komarov’s concepts must be squared with the concepts of other Soviet biologists like N. I. Vavilov. Even Bobrov, though more of the “‘old school,” is fully aware of the great biological complexities introduced by apomixis, hybridization, etc., which were not fully comprehended in Flora SSSR, and he calls for the use of new methods (9, 36). Authorship The editorship realized at the outset that the taxonomists of the Botanical Institute could not prepare Flora SSSR within 156 Komarov Botanical Institute the allotted tme, as Fedtschenko had shown by his prelimi- nary calculations. From the beginning the Flora was to be a national project enlisting the aid of taxonomists in universities and in the Academies of Sciences of the Union Republics. Ultimately, however, the bulk of the work fell on the Insti- tute’s botanists. Here, after all, is where most of the necessary collections were held. Altogether, about 100 botanists collaborated in the writing, although about a third of these contributed to only one volume. The active nucleus was comprised of 20-30 authors (5). Some of those who contributed to only a few volumes, e.g., Roshevitz (Gramineae), Fedorov (Campanulaceae), Juxip (Hieracium), nonetheless contributed very significant treatments, in some cases writing a whole volume or nearly so. About two dozen authors contributed to five or more volumes, and the following seven contributed to ten or more: E. G. Bobrov, A. G. Boris- ova, S. G. Gorschkova, S. V. Juzepczuk, A. N. Krishtofovich, B. K. Schischkin, and I. T. Vassilczenko. Bobrov, Borisova, and Gorschkova are now retired, and Vassilczenko is chief curator of the Vascular Plant Herbarium. The other three are no longer living. (For a complete statistical breakdown of contributions to Flora SSSR, both by author and by volume, see I. Linchevsky, “Flora URSS” [notula bibliographical}. Nov. System. Plant. Vasc. 1966, pp. 316-30.) As already indicated, Bobrov’s contribution as author and organizer was enormous, and Schischkin was one of the real “work horses,’ who personally prepared the text for 1347 published pages of the Flora, covering 1446 species (5)! His main contributions were in the Caryophyllaceae and Umbel- liferae. Soviet sources place Schischkin second only to Komar- ov as worker and prime mover in the Flora. Through the years, Vassilczenko, a remarkable man, has been one of the Institute’s most indefatigable workers, and he was a mainstay The Institute: Flora SSSR 157 of the Flora to the finish. His valiant efforts to keep the Flora going during World War II, when the Project reached its lowest ebb, deserve special mention. Others also deserve mention. N. F. Gontscharov, ** who died tragically of starvation during the war, will always be remembered as one of the real heroes of the Flora (see p. 101): His and Vassilczenko’s efforts during the war are only sym- bolic of the brave sacrifices made by many at that ume (9). The author-pool was seriously depleted by the war, but during the final surge of writing after the war it was replenished from the ranks of energetic younger botanists (An. A. Fedorov, N. N. Tsvelev, S. K. Tcherepanov, etc.) Also, more botanists from the Academies of the Republics lent assistance (9, 10). Interestingly, the editorial committee did not depend en- tirely on specialists to write the Flora. Authors were recruited to study various groups that they had not previously studied. Early in the planning the decision was made “‘that any suit- able taxonomist might be enlisted for the treatment of any group” (9). This was to prevent what had happened in the study of such difficult families as the Gramineae (grasses), namely, the development of a “monopoly” of the family by one or two specialists. The editorship wanted to broaden the specialist base by having others acquire the necessary expertise and infuse the subject with their own new ideas. No doubt this practice was encouraged by the Party leadership, who were eager to subordinate the personal aspects of scientific scholarship to the social aspects and to prevent any one person from becoming an indispensable member of the scientific establishment. Komarov’s direct contributions to the Flora were limited; he will not likely be remembered in history for the few taxo- nomic treatments he contributed. Except for those very early 54Or, N.F. Goncharov. 158 Komarov Botanical Institute years, even his active editing must have been minimal, be- cause already in 1934 he became preoccupied with Academy business (p. 88), although, as editor-in-chief, he did maintain an all-important veto control on policy matters. Yet despite his relatively minor contributions to the printed text, Komarov will go down in history as the author and genius of Flora SSSR, which will stand in the annals of taxonomic literature to his everlasting credit. At a ume when probably no other scientist in the Soviet Union would or could have performed in his stead, Komarov served the absolutely vital role of public and official advocate-propagandist for the Flora Project, defending, explaining, and popularizing it on every hand. As president of the Academy of Sciences during a most crucial period (1936-45), he used this pinnacle of scientific influence to keep his cherished cause on course. One can well imagine the number of times he must have found himself justifying the Flora effort to the officialdom, both inside and outside the Academy, especially after the later volumes began to take on the character of scientific monographs rather than brief refer- ence manuals, and the date of completion kept getting more remote. Nothing is so normal and yet so difficult to explain to bureaucratic planners as the scientist’s inability to predict the precise duration of his research. Public Support Official and public support for the Flora Project was in- tense and enthusiastic in the early years to the point of being meddlesome. Manuscripts were given a public review, and, as indicated earlier, ideological questions were publicly directed to the editorship (9, 10). As a part of the 5-year programs, this Project was a public goal, and its progress was one barom- eter for measuring the progress of socialist reconstruction in The Institute: Flora SSSR 159 the Russian scientific establishment. Prior to the war and just after the first 10 volumes had appeared, Flora SSSR was given a public citation by the Soviet Government, and a national prize was awarded (3). It is hard to imagine this kind of honor being accorded a flora project anywhere else in the world, regardless how enlightened the national leadership; and to botanists in general, who are unaccustomed to public, not to say political, recognition for their work, such a citation can only be applauded, whatever the motivations. After the war public interest flagged, and the Project lost some of its official luster. Bobrov (9) indicates that the loss of public interest was due at least in part to the passing of Komarov, who had valued popular support highly and had been so effective in encouraging It. An unusual but interesting feature of Flora SSSR related presumably to its public image is the dual use of Latin and Russian binomial names in the keys and descriptive text. Con- ventional Latin nomenclature is used in the standard way, but in addition there is a complete binomial system of Russian nomenclature. Some of the Russian generic and specific epi- thets are only transliterations of the Latin epithets, but others are true Russian words of more or less equivalent meaning either by translation or long association and usage. The Rus- sian binomials are not ‘““common names” in the usual sense because many of the species have still other, well known, Rus- sian vernacular names that are unrelated to any system. The Russian binomial system would seem to serve the purpose of standardizing popular plant names for the lay public and particularly for agricultural, horticultural, and other profes- sional workers who often need to know the names of plants but customarily do not use scientific names. Since Russians do not use the Latin alphabet in daily life, the Russian layman would seem to have more than ordinary justification for claim- ing that scientific names are unpronounceable. 160 Komarov Botanical Institute In retrospect, it seems a small miracle that the Flora Project continued until the very end to have at least tacit official blessing and support, and that, despite harassments, Flora SSSR never fell prey to political intrigue, ideological med- dling, or author fatigue. S ignificance It would be hard to overstate how profoundly the Flora Project has influenced the orientation and character of Soviet botany in general and the life of the Botanical Institute in particular during the past 35 years. Bobrov (9) says, “It is generally acknowledged that nothing has contributed so much to the further investigation of the plants of the U.S.S.R. as the publication, volume by volume, of the general Flora of the U.S.S.R.” A great era of national exploration was automat- ically ushered in. The published Flora provided a standard and a source for the preparation of regional (e.g., Union Re- publics) and local floras, and through the years nearly a score of such ‘‘offshoot’’ floras have been undertaken (5,9,10). Sometimes the imitation has been too literal and uncritical, and the special features of the given region and its plants have not been taken into account. (This is a universal hazard of floristic research.) Takhtajan et al. (5) chide those who com- posed their own regional floras by borrowing mechanically from the Flora for misunderstanding its purpose. It goes with- out saying, they add, that the excellence of a given regional flora is directly proportional to the degree of original research that went into it. The floristic researches culminating in Flora SSSR have brought world fame to the Komarov Botanical Institute, as Bobrov (10) rightly points out, and he predicts that floristics will continue to be important in its future programs. This The Institute: Flora SSSR 161 optimism is shared by other botanists at the Institute (4, 5). Chater (32), however, sees some uncertainty about the future: During the last 30 years much of the work of the herbarium has been connected with this Flora and influenced by the concepts that evolved during its production. This focus of interest gave the Lenin- grad herbarium its unique value, and now that it is gone, and now that the tradition it encouraged is to some extent breaking up, it is hard to foresee any new unifying project or point of view taking its place. He points out further that most of the monographic work now being done at the Institute was an outgrowth of studies for the Flora. Clearly, the Flora Project has provided enormous stimulus for monographic researches going far beyond the scope of the Flora itself. Botanists at the Institute today regard Flora SSSR as only one more stage in the investigation of the Russian flora—a new stage of synthesis. ‘“The prospect of further work is en- hanced by the fact that we now know the flora of the U.S.S.R. just well enough to realize how little of it we really do know. We now have a clearer idea of the tasks confronting us, such as the preparation of monographs of particular groups’’ (9). They feel that most of European USSR and significant parts of the Caucasus, Middle Asia, and Western Siberia are floris- tically well known, but some genuine ‘‘blank spots’’ are to be found in the high mountains of the Caucasus, in Middle Asia, and in Northwestern Siberia. In Eastern Siberia and the Far East there are vast areas where virtually nothing is known (5). Flora SSSR is widely used abroad, despite the formidability of the Russian language, and foreign botanists are gaining a new appreciation of the great value and significance of this work, now that it is completed. Unfortunately, many of the volumes were issued in very limited editions and almost im- mediately went out of print so that today full sets are extremely rare and expensive. The early volumes are especially rare, but 162 Komarov Botanical Institute the first 13 have now been reprinted by photo-offset in West Germany (1963). Because of the great demand for an English translation, the Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation are sponsoring translations under the “Israel Program for Scientific Translations.”” The volumes have not been translated in sequence, and thus far only vol- umes 2 (1963, Gramineae), 3 (1964, Cyperaceae), 12 (1965, Astragalus), and 18 (1967, early Metachlamydeae) are issued; volumes 1, 4, 5, and 6 are in preparation. Russian botanists consider volume 2 to be much out of date (Bobrov, 9). Plans are now being made at the Smithsonian Institu- tion for vastly speeding up the translation program, and, in the future, volumes will be translated in sequence. At least a partial new edition of Flora SSSR 1s con- templated. This will probably take the form of publishing additions and corrections to some volumes and whole new treatments of some families. ““Among the families to be revised, the Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Leguminosae, Rosaceae, and Pinaceae are of particular scientific and practi- cal interest” (9). Chater (32) doubts that any major effort can be made: “There is a shortage of young taxonomists, and of those there are, few are in a position both to appreciate the traditional methods and to relate to them the new techniques.” The Flora is not without its shortcomings, as some foreign botanists have perhaps been too eager to point out. Soviet bot- anists have criticized their own work for many of the same reasons and have been candid in acknowledging the validity of foreign criticism (5, 9). Taken as a whole, Flora SSSR shows much unevenness in the extent and quality of its treatments, especially when the earliest volumes are compared with the postwar volumes. What promised to be a diagnostic flora, on the order of the currently appearing Flora Europaea, evolved gradually into a monographical flora, on the order of North Photographs courtesy Arthur Cronquist V.L. Komarov examining specimens in herbarium in 1932. Photograph by S. G. Shetler Supper in historical park at Pavlovsk, south of Leningrad. From left to right: chauffeur; Evgenia Fédorov, wife of Professor Fédorov; Elena Mordak, research assistant of Professor Fédo- rov; Professor Andrey A. Fédorov. Photograph by Andrey Fédorov Waiting out the rain under shelter on grounds of historical park at Pushkin, south of Leningrad. From left to right: Evgenia Fédorov, Elena Mordak, and author. The Institute: Flora SSSR 163 American Flora or Flora Malesiana. It is clear from what has already been said that this trend was inevitable and necessary, and yet the fact that it occurred suggests that perhaps too little editorial restraint was imposed as a whole. The Project was often hampered by lack of sufficient herbarium collections, and the unequal experience and training of the many authors also contributed to the lack of uniformity. These are pitfalls that can never be avoided completely. As Bobrov (9) says, it is natural “that a large-scale collective work of this kind should involve authors of unequal experience, with different degrees of training, some with their firmly established views and some with their ideas incompletely formulated.” Takhtajan et al. (5), on the other hand, feel that much of this author inequal- ity can be overcome in future work. The principal drawback, from the standpoint of the foreign user, is the great imprecision of the geographic information. Most of the phytogeographic regions used in the Flora are so large as to be virtually meaningless to anyone trying to com- prehend the finer details of plant distribution across the globe. Takhtajan et al. state that the Flora was very tardy in keeping up with changes in Soviet boundaries. The timelag between the political changes and the Flora changes reached as much as 10 years. The completion of a 30-volume flora is a record achieve- ment any time, but Flora SSSR represents a truly unique achievement in the annals of taxonomic research, considering its scope, its virtually monographic character, and the tremen- dous intrinsic and fortuitous difficulties it had to survive. Thirty-three years are a long time to sustain a research proj- ect; profound changes can come to an institution or country during a third of a century, and the best laid plans can easily be trampled by forces completely beyond the control of those who laid them. Never were these hazards more realistic than 164 Komarov Botanical Institute they were in the land and time of Stalin’s reign. On top of this was the catastrophe of World War II. The task of preparing a complete vascular flora for the entire Soviet Union tran- scended individual capacity; it had to be done by large-scale cooperation. As they did not fully realize, but time was to prove, this task would outlast the lives or at least the produc- tive careers of virtually every charter participant. Yet some- how the effort was sustained and the task accomplished. The essential ingredients were 225 years of careful groundwork, socialist planning and prodding, single-minded use of Komarovian taxonomic concepts and methods, and above all the dedication of Soviet botanists, especially the dedication of the active nucleus of authors who fought the Project through to the finish. Ironically, Flora SSSR was not as much of a collective effort as the fact of the 100 signatories would seem to suggest. It is crystal clear from the accounts of those who were closest to the Project that in the end the Flora 1s really a memorial to a relatively few scientists who, as individuals, had the vision and tenacity to persist. To this day, the comparable American project to write the North American Flora, begun 62 years ago (1905) by Nathaniel Lord Britton (1859-1934) at the New York Bo- tanical Garden, has not yet been completed. When Britton died, his project had already been under way almost as long as Flora SSSR, then beginning, has required altogether. Though North American Flora has also been a collaborative effort, involving many authors, it has lacked the rigid pro- graming and urgent motivations necessary to see it through, and it lost its own “‘Komarov’”’ too early in the program. It 1s possible, of course, that the new series recently begun will bring the project to completion. Ambitious schemes to carry out long-term researches on a committee basis seldom succeed, at least as first envisioned, and The Institute: Flora SSSR 165 nearly all of the great taxonomic and floristic works of the past have been accomplished almost singlehandedly by one or two highly motivated and dedicated individuals. In fact some would argue, and with very good historical reason, that floras simply are not produced by committee planning and programing (39). But Flora SSSR monumentally demolishes this argument, even if one must confess that at times this Flora was more of an individual than a committee activity. Obviously there are formulas that can make the committee approach work, and now we are encouraged to believe, thanks to the team projects producing Flora Europaea and Flora Malesiana, that these formulas are not peculiar to socialist states. Professor Hey- wood, in his foreword to Bobrov’s article in Nature (9), notes with pleasure that the appearance of the final volume of Flora SSSR in 1964 coincided with the appearance of the first volume of Flora Europaea. He notes also that about the same number of species as described in Flora SSSR (17,520) are estimated for Flora Europaea. It is to be hoped that the present preliminary planning in the United States will some day culminate in the companion synoptical Flora North America, thereby completing the description of the north temperate and arctic floras of the world. The successful com- pletion of Flora SSSR has been a major inspiration to the North American botanists who have finally resolved to prepare their own complete Flora. The exemplary Flora SSSR is the most outstanding taxo- nomic achievement of Russian botany down to the present time, and it epitomizes everything that is good about programed research. As Heywood puts it, this Flora represents ‘‘not only a major scientific achievement but also testimony to the cour- age, foresight and tenacity of Soviet botanists.’ American bot- anists can only salute their Soviet colleagues for such a signal accomplishment. The cause of botany has been advanced 166 Komarov Botanical Institute everywhere by the appearance of this colossal compendium on the Russian flora. SERIAL PUBLICATIONS With the year 1932, the chief scientific periodicals of the former Principal Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum— Acta Horti Petropohtani (1871-1932, 44 vols.) and Travaux de Musée Botanique de Academie des Sciences de TURSS (1902-32, 25 vols.), respectively—ceased independent pub- lication, and in 1933 the first issues of the new, consolidated periodical—A cta Instituti Botanici (Nomine V. L. Komarovu [after 1939]) Academiae Scientiarum URSS—came out. * This periodical, which began with two separate series, has been the principal outlet of the Botanical Institute for major scientific works ever since. Series I, Flora et Systematica Plantae Vasculares, came close to the older Acta Horti in con- tent. In the period 1933-64, a total of 13 volumes was issued —one a year at best—but with gaps of up to 6 years between volumes and averaging, therefore, less than 1 volume every 2 years. Series II, Plantae Cryptogamae, has had a similar record since 1933. These series became the publication outlets for the Departments of Vascular Plants and Cryptogamic Plants, respectively. As the need arose in other departments for publication media, more series were added gradually to 55Cf. also pp. 37, 59. These are the titles by which the three serials are known abroad. The Russian titles, as of 1932-33, were Tpyazs Iaapuoro Botannyeckoro Caga PC®CP (Trudy Glavnogo Botanicheskogo Sada RSFSR), Tpyan Borannueckoro Mysea Axagemnn Hayk CCCP (Trudy Botanicheskogo Muzeya Akademii Nauk SSSR), and Tpyast Borannyeckoro Uncrutyta (uM. B. J. Komaposa) Axagemun Hayk CCCP (Trudy Botanicheskogo Instituta (im. V. L. Komarova [after 1939]) Akademii Nauk SSSR), respectively. In Russian sources, these three periodicals are referred to simply as the Trudy ( = Acta, Travaux, or “Proceedings”) of the Botanic Garden, Bo- tanical Museum, and Botanical Institute, respectively. The Institute: Serial Publications 167 the Acta Instituti Botanici, until there are now eight series. The other six are the following: III. Geobotanica (1934-65, 17 vols.);*° IV. Botanica Experimentalis (1934-66, 18 vols.); V. Materiae Rudes Plantarum (1938-67, 14 vols.); VI. Introductio Plantarum et Viridaria (1950-62, 8 vols.); VII. Morphologia et Anatomia Plantarum (1950-62, 5 vols.); and VIII. Palaeobotanica (1956-64, 5 vols.). *7 Ob- viously, this periodical embraces all phases of the Institute’s work. Large papers, monographs, and full-length books ap- pear in the various series. Some departments had their own periodicals besides Acta, the institutional periodical. The Department of the Botanic Garden continued Delectus Seminum (see p. 37). In 1937, the Department of Vascular Plants commenced again to pub- lish its Notulae Systematicae, issuing volume 7, the first under the Institute’s imprint. ** Publication had been suspended by the Principal Botanic Garden in 1926 with volume 6. As before, this periodical carried short taxonomic and nomen- clatural papers, which suddenly were in abundant supply once Flora SSSR got under way. In 1964, Notulae was suc- °SAll series are continuing, and the number of volumes given here does not indicate a completed run, but only the number issued during the years listed. “These Latin titles are frequently used in Russian sources even though some of the series only belatedly have acquired them, and Series VII has never been published with a Latin title page. Therefore, it is useful to list here the Russian titles: I. ®1zopa mu Cucremaruka Brrcmux Pactenun (Flora i Systematika Vysshikh Rasteniy); Il. Cuopospte Pactenua (Sporovye Raste- mia); Ill. Teodorannka (Geobotanika); IV. IkcuepuMentaibnaa Botanuka (Eksperimental’naya Botanika); V. Pacruteabnoe Cripse (Rastitel’noe Syr’e); VI. Untpoxyknua Pactenum uo Serenoe Crpontessctso (Introduktsia Rasteniy i Zelenoe Stroitel’stvo); VII. Mopdoasorua u Anatomusa Pactenuit (Morfologia i Anatomia Rasteniy); VIII. Waseoboranuxa (Paleobotanika). SFull title after 1939: Notulae Systematicae ex Herbario Instituti Botanici Nomine V.L. Komarovii Academiae Scientiarum URSS; in Russian, botanu- veckHe Marepuaap l'epoapna botrannueckoro Uncruryta um. B. J. Komaposa Axagemun Hayr CCCP (Botanicheskie Materialy Gerbaria Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V. L. Komarova Akademii Nauk SSSR). 168 Komarov Botanical Institute ceeded by a reorganized publication, Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium, *? which does not differ appreciably in format and content. According to Editor I. A. Linchevsky (40), no less than one volume of Novitates is to come out each year—a goal that was never met by Notulae. In 44 years (1919-63), 22 volumes were published. Linchevsky indi- cates that the same general types of papers will be carried in the new periodical, and Director Fedorov (correspondence, 1966) says that the change of title reflects a general tendency to simplify the titles of periodicals, as seen, for example, in the renaming of the Paris Notulae. . . as Adansonia. The Department of Cryptogamic Plants resumed publish- ing its analogous Notulae series, begun in 1922, but now of course under the imprint of the Botanical Institute. °° Four volumes had been issued by 1926 when publication had been suspended. The Botanical Institute published 12 more by 1963, all but one of them since 1948. Thus, in 41 years (1922-63), 16 volumes have been issued. In 1964, the crypto- gamic Notulae series was also succeeded by a Novitates series. The Department of Vascular Plants also started again to publish Schedae ad Herbarium Florae URSS°' and to dis- tribute the accompanying exsiccatae specimens, begun at the former Botanical Museum at the turn of the century and sus- pended in 1922 after the passing of D. I. Litvinow (see also p. 60). Between 1932 and 1957, under the direction of “°Hosoctm Cuctematuku Bricumx Pacteanu (Novosti Sistematiki Vysshikh Rastenty). 6°Full title after 1939: Notulae Systematicae e Sectione Cryptogamica Instituti Botanici Nomine V. L. Komarovii Academiae Scientiarum URSS; in Russian, boranuyeckue Martepnaasr Orgera Cuoposnx Pactrennu botanu- yeckoro Muctutyta um. B. J. Komapopa Axageman Hayk CCCP (Botanicheskie Materialy Otdela Sporovykh Rasteniy Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V. L. Komarova Akademii Nauk SSSR). *1Russian title since 1932: Cuucox Pactennit Tep6apua Pxops1 CCCP (Spisok Rasteniy Gerbaria Flory SSSR). The Institute: Serial Publications 169 Schischkin, the department published booklets 9-14, covering exsiccatae fascicles 56—84 (Nos. 2801-4200), and distributed the accompanying 1400 species (5O/fascicle). This represented 70,000 sheets (50/species). Altogether, 4200 species and 210,000 sheets were distributed to major national and inter- national botanical centers during the 59 years between 1898, when the project started, and 1957; still, this represented somewhat less than a fourth of the known species of the WiSoiec2(2- 18, ).pps 93, 288) Finally, it should be mentioned that the Botanical Institute published its own bimonthly journal from 1933 until 1938— Sovetskaya Botanika.°’ This new journal succeeded the Prin- cipal Botanic Garden’s Bulletin (Izvestia), published for a total of 32 years (1901-32) and 30 volumes (see p. 38). After 1938, Sovetskaya Botanika no longer carried the Institute’s masthead, but instead the general masthead of the Academy of Sciences, although the Institute continued, in effect, to run the journal. From the outset it had been open for use to all Soviet botanists. The final volume (vol. 15) was published in 1947, and in 1948 it was united with Journal Botanique de TURSS (Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR) into one bi- monthly periodical, Botanichesky Zhurnal.** This new bi- monthly, which became monthly in 1956, replaced Journal Botanique as official organ of the All-Union Botanical Society of the USSR, successor to the Russian Botanical Society founded in 1915 (see p. 50). Since the Society functions under the general auspices of the Academy, Botanichesky Zhurnal °°1898— Booklet 1, fascicles 1-4, species 1-200 (10,000 specimens). 1900-22—Booklets 2-8, fascicles’ 5-55, species 201-2800 (2600 species; 130,000 specimens). 1932-57 Booklets 9-14, fascicles 56-84, species 2801-4200 (1400 species; 70,000 specimens). 63Copetckad Botannka. ‘4Botanmueckuit Kypuad. 170 Komarov Botanical Institute comes out under the Academy’s masthead. The volume series of Journal Botanique, which by 1947 had reached volume 32 (1916-47, inclusive), has been continued by Zhurnal. Thus in 1965 Zhurnal reached its 5Oth volume, matching the Bo- tanical Society’s 5O years of existence. Zhurnal is run by an Editorial Board, appointed by the Society, which 1s head- quartered at the Komarov Botanical Institute and dominated by Institute botanists. For example, the journal currently (1967) has three associate editors, and two of these are Insti- tute botanists, namely the morphologist M. S. Yakovlev and the geobotanist B. K. Tikhomirov. A historical sketch of the journal’s first 5O years is given in the September 1965 issue of Zhurnal in a paper by two other Institute botanists, E. M. Lavrenko and A. A. Yunatov (see footnote 18, p. 51). (2, >. 185 3, 9D. 22, ZO) At present the size of articles is limited in Botanichesky Zhurnal, apparently because of a persistent but intensifying paper shortage in the Soviet Union—an anomalous situation in a country of such vast tmber resources. This shortage has required size-economies that seriously threaten legitimate and necessary scientific publication, and the Botanical Institute has some important work in manuscript right now that could be hurt by these economies. For example, M. E. Kirpicznikov and N. N. Zabinkova have a Russian-Latin botanical lexicon in manuscript that is unique for its rich selection of examples, and one can only hope that their work will be published in its entirety. (32, 41) INTERNATIONAL ROLE From the early days of their founding, when Peter the Great imported foreign botanists to direct their scientific activ- The Institute: International Role 171 ities and when many of their most important collections origi- nated outside Imperial Russia, the botanical institutions of St. Petersburg-Leningrad have always had a strong international focus and role. Exchanges of fruits, seeds, dried and living plants, publications, and scholars themselves have been con- ducted more or less systematically—with some notable breaks —for several hundred years. Expeditions have gone out into all parts of Russia and the world, and in return many foreign expeditions have been permitted on Russian soil during the long years. The peak of this activity was reached, probably, during the pre-Revolution years of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when St. Petersburg was a major international cen- ter in the erudite commerce of botanical scholarship. The coming of the Revolution in 1917 signaled far-reaching changes in the scientific activities as in the lives in general of the Russian people, although the changes did not come at once (see next section). The metamorphosis from Russian to Soviet science was a painful, complicated process involving far more then the mere difference in words can tell. Within a decade scientific activities were sharply reoriented toward much more practical and nationalistic goals than before, and the former international traffic in scholars and scholarship all but dried up. Fortunately, the Leningrad botanical centers were able to maintain some small degree of international con- tact even in the most difficult years, 1931-44, when Soviet science in general went through its most internalized phase. Whereas in the 1920s botanical expeditions were still being sent abroad, e.g., Juzepczuk’s trip to Brazil, and foreign bota- nists were still being allowed on Russian soil, e.g., Hulten’s expedition to Kamtchatka, by the 1930s very little such ex- change occurred any longer. At the same time some Russian botanists went abroad, and plant specimens were exchanged between the Botanical Institute and foreign institutions dur- 172 Komarov Botanical Institute ing most years of the 1930s. World War II, of course, brought a nearly complete cessation of these exchanges. This scientific reorientation was partly a natural outgrowth of the new social orientation of the Revolution, giving legiti- mate if belated attention to the national welfare, but also it was rooted partly in the unfortunate political realities of the later post-Revolution period. In the postwar period, beginning as early as 1947 when Juzepezuk and Schischkin went to Brazil, the Institute, like the whole Russian scientific establishment, had begun to look outward once again, and the recent history of the Institute 1s characterized by a new surge of international interest. The tempo of expeditions to foreign regions, especially the tropics, has picked up, and there is renewed participation in foreign exchanges of all sorts. Federov (3) points out that quite a few Institute botanists have traveled abroad in recent years and some have stayed abroad 6 months or longer. He also states that many foreign botanists visit the Institute each year, al- though Chater (32, p. 12), who, like me (1), found no serious impediment for foreign visitors, paints a somewhat more re- strained picture on this point: Considering that the Leningrad herbarium is the second largest in the world, it was surprising to find so few visitors there. Besides myself, the only other foreigner working there for more than a few days, during the [three-month] period of my stay, was a research student from North Vietnam (Luong Ngoc-Toan, monographing the Vietnamese species of Castanopsis) in the middle of a three-year visit .. . Visitors even from other parts of the U.S.S.R. were rare. The story is no doubt very similar for the other departments. If anything, the Herbarium would likely attract more foreign visitors than any other department. Cooperation and participation in international botanical activities (committees, congresses, joint research efforts) have The Institute: International Role 173 increased but still are more token than real, both for the Insti- tute itself and for Soviet botany in general. Thus, while Soviet botanists, including Institute members, have participated in all four postwar International Botanical Congresses (Stockholm, Paris, Montreal, Edinburgh), only token delegations have come to each one. For example, 19 representatives attended the Edinburgh Congress in 1964, 3 of whom were botanists from the Institute. Considering the size of the total Soviet delegation, this was a very good representation for one institu- tion. However, as Institute botanist Tikhomirov points out to his colleagues in a report in Botanichesky Zhurnal (30), 19 botanists from the entire Soviet Union was a rather small delegation compared with the total number of 4500 botanists who attended the Congress and considering some of the impor- tant disciplines that were not represented in their delegation (e.g., paleobotany and cryptogamic taxonomy). At one point, the Soviet Academy of Sciences, through the All-Union Botanical Society, had planned to send many more delegates, and 183 persons had submitted abstracts to the Soviet Organizing Committee. Of these abstracts, 144 were approved and sent on to Edinburgh for publication in the pro- gram. In the end, only 21 papers were given, unfortunately, and as Tikhomirov also notes, many Soviet chairmen of ses- sions or symposia failed to materialize; but he takes some comfort in the fact that at least the abstracts were published and will give Western botanists a limited picture of the present scope and progress of Soviet botanical science. When one con- siders that the Department of Botany of the Smithsonian In- stitution, which houses the U. S. National Herbarium and is more or less comparable to the Komarov Institute’s Depart- ment of Vascular Plants, itself sent eight botanists to the Con- gress—almost half the entire Soviet delegation and nearly three times the Komarov Institute’s delegation—then one can 174 Komarov Botanical Institute appreciate how minimal was the Soviet participation. It should be added that the Smithsonian sent every botanist of its staff who wished to attend. It must also be said, in defense of the Soviet botanists, that the Edinburgh Congress was almost entirely an English-speaking Congress, and only minimal ar- rangements had been made for Russian-language participa- tion. Surely the day will come when simultaneous translation equipment will be economically feasible for International Botanical Congresses. To date, Russian participation in the European project to write Flora Europaea has been less than had been hoped for. On the other hand, prospects for Russian participation in the forthcoming International Biological Program (IBP)® ap- pear considerably brighter. Preliminary plans for participation were discussed in March 1965 by the Soviet Academy’s Scientific Council that deals with the problem of the “bio- logical basis of rational use, regeneration, and conservation of vegetation, which met at the Institute in Leningrad to consider objectives for the next Five-Year Plan (1966-70). L. E. Rodin, a leading geobotanist at the Institute who has traveled abroad various times, outlined the goals of IBP at this meeting (22). (Rodin took part in the Schischkin-Juzepczuk Brazilian ex- pedition in 1947, and attended the Botanical Congress in Edinburgh in 1964.) In January 1966, according to Director Aleksandr Fedorov (correspondence, 1966), the Institute held important discus- sions on IBP, and a program of action was worked out. Future efforts by the Komarov Botanical Institute and many other institutes of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Repub- lics’ academies will be governed by this program. A total of 6>"The Russian abbreviation is MBI] — Meazyuapozuas Buogzorngeckaan IIpo- tpamma (MBP—Mezhdunarodnaya Biologicheskaya Programma). The Institute: Intellectual Milieu 175 55 institutions, including botanic gardens, museums, research laboratories and institutes, etc., are cooperating. Thus, it is quite clear that participation in IBP will be an integral part of Soviet botanical activities during their next Five-Year Plan. In conclusion, one can only say that while the Botanical Institute’s botanists, like all Russian botanists, have increased their international contacts greatly since the war, the extent of participation and cooperation 1s still far below a desirable level; the influence they exert on the world community 1s not com- mensurate with that to which their achievements entitle them. In particular, Institute botanists have paid relatively few visits to Western Europe and even fewer to North America, and their Western contacts in general and American contacts in specific have lagged considerably behind their expanding con- tacts elsewhere in the world. INTELLECTUAL MILIEU In the preceding pages I have reported and to some degree interpreted the events, accomplishments, and people in the illustrious 250 years that now stand behind the present-day Komarov Botanical Institute. A more fascinating chapter would be the intellectual history of the Institute and its mother institutions, unravelling the ideas and forces that have shaped botanical science here and weighing them carefully against the successive intellectual climates of the times, both inside and outside Russia. Above all, nothing is more intriguing to con- template than the meaning and motivation of science in the modern Soviet period. The temptation to indulge in detailed ideological analysis must be resisted, however. For who 1s qualified to say any more on the subject at this time? Never- theless, some generalizations are conspicuous. 176 Komarov Botanical Institute Few national scientific establishments in the history of science have had to survive a succession of leaderships with such different philosophies of science and to withstand such political and ideological attention as has the Russian estab- lishment. Following the long classical tsarist period, during which the science of Imperial Russia was slowly evolving under much the same philosophy as Western science and was openly borrowing from Western scholarly traditions, the Bol- shevik Revolution, particularly after Stalin had consolidated his power, introduced Russian science to a new kind of alle- giance, not only to the Soviet State with its manifold needs and wants, but also to the Communist Party with its material- istic and, to a Westerner, downright mystic ideology. While the basic character of these forces has probably not changed appreciably since 1917, nevertheless, to the outsider, there has been a detectable alleviation of the pressures during the post- Stalin years. Partly this is due to the realities of scientific competition. In the Soviet period much of the responsibility for science has been consolidated in the all-pervasive Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Although numerous researches are also carried out in universities and pedagogical institutes, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher Education, the Acad- emy occupies the apex of Soviet science, and its members out- rank the prestige and influence of university scientists. Indeed, there is a well-known rivalry between the Academy and the Ministry, and an interesting sidelight on the perennial tension between them is provided by Tikhomirov’s (30) statistical analysis of Soviet attendance at the 10th International Bo- tanical Congress in Edinburgh. His figures show that univer- sity scientists were virtually unrepresented in the USSR’s delegation. The Institute: Intellectual Milieu e/a: The centrality of the Soviet Academy of Sciences ® in the direction and management of research and higher learning, particularly during the past 35 years, is hard for an American, familiar with the role of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, to comprehend. Yet one only need study the history of a member institution like the Komarov Botani- cal Institute in the context of the history and activities of the Soviet Academy as a whole to appreciate how small is the truly autochthonous element in the program and planning of any subordinate unit of the Academy. Virtually all of a mem- iber| institution’s activities can be traced, ultimately, to decisions and directives of the Academy through its various hierarchi- cal councils. The Academy’s actions can be traced, in turn, to directives of the Government and Party. To digress for a moment, let us analyze the universal forces that shape science wherever it is practiced, before turning more specifically to Soviet science and its influence on the develop- ment of the Komarov Botanical Institute. The development of science is a function of intrinsic forces and extrinsic forces. The intrinsic forces are the forces of his- torical development within one’s own discipline which gener- ate the necessities for current and future research, and the forces of the scientist’s own intellect—his training, experience, imagi- nation, curiosity, and creativity. A scholar gets nowhere in his science if he 1s not a real insider to his discipline, fully initiated into its traditions and cognizant of its historical pro- 66] am indebted primarily to the monograph of Alexander Vucinich, “The Soviet Academy of Sciences,” which documents the history, structure, and inner workings of the Academy through 1955, for my insights on the Academy (20). For a look at the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, see D. S. Greenberg, The National Academy of Sciences: profile of an institution (I), (II), (III), Science 156: 222-229 (April 14), 360-364 (April 21), 488-493 (April 28). 1967. 178 Komarov Botanical Institute gress so that he can build upon this progress by advancing a frontier that has not already been advanced somewhere else in the world. The moment that the free flow of scientific informa- tion is cut off or impeded within the discipline, whether at the personal, institutional, national, or international level, the current necessities of the science are no longer apparent, and the scientist is left with the alternative of either fabricating the current state of affairs on the basis of his own partial knowledge or ignoring it, pretending that progress can come without history. Thus the well-being of theoretical science is so thor- oughly dependent upon the constant and rapid exchange of publications and people at all levels that the slightest impedi- ment risks a costly, perhaps fatal ignorance. These are realities. The extrinsic forces are those motivations and demands imposed by society that tend to lead a scientist around “‘by the nose’ from one agricultural, industrial, or social dilemma to another. They are the forces of technology and development that use a little science to make a lot of practice, and they tend to divert the scientist from his theoretical pathways of scholarly research into the stereotyped byways of application. Informa- tion exchange is important to the society-oriented scientist, as to the discipline-oriented scientist, but the free flow of informa- tion at all levels is never quite so crucial to him. The require- ments of society are always relative—relative to geography, climate, previous technological and intellectual development, industrial and economic capacity, nationality, etc.—and this means that applied science, unlike theoretical science, can often be successful on a national or less-than-disciplinewide level. It has a much greater chance of retaining relevance long after becoming ingrown and parochial than has theoretical science, which is fully relevant and viable on/y when 1t 1s also fully cosmopolitan. The extrinsic or social forces have a way of restraining The Institute: Intellectual Milieu 179 scholars and keeping them human when they would soar into some esoteric realm beyond the pale of mortal needs, and the best science, surely, is that produced by a scientist who is sub- ject to a happy balance of personal and social research motiva- tions. This balance can hardly be defined, but it would seem that the most successful scientists—from the standpoint of their contributions to theoretical knowledge—are those who are pre- dominantly discipline-oriented, yet have a savoring streak of humanitarian idealism that gives them a sense of higher pur- pose in their research and a genuine concern for how the fruits of their discoveries and theories will be put to use by society. On the other hand, the scientist who is too much the hand- maiden of society and too little the servant of his profession 1s not likely to find enough time, cloistered with himself, for producing a significant amount of theoretical science. Thus, it would seem that the scientist in pursuit of research should al- ways allow the intrinsic forces of his discipline to dominate the extrinsic forces of his society. Some Russian science, in terms of this analysis, has suffered an imbalance of intrinsic and extrinsic forces during the Soviet period, with society dominating discipline and intellect. Of- ficially, Soviet science has no scholars, only scientific workers. °7 The difference in words is highly significant in the commu- nist lexicon. Presumably, “‘scholars’’ lack social orientation and are selfishly devoted to ofttimes useless, esoteric causes and personal glory, whereas “‘scientific workers’ are altruistic servants of society who understand social realities and use their special skills and privileged status for the good of everyone. Actually, the difference in philosophy and motivation be- tween the average American “‘scholar”’ and the average Rus- sian “‘scientific worker’ is probably not very great. Surely ®“An even more favored term is scientific “coworkers” (corpyyuuku— sotrudniki). 180 Komarov Botanical Institute most Russian scientists are concerned about the personal, intel- lectual motivations of their science, and, conversely, the Ameri- can scientist is rare indeed who does not have some social function to perform as part of his total research activities. It is probably fair to say, however, that the average American scientist 1s more callous toward social pressures calling for collective action to achieve scientific goals than his Soviet coun- terpart. Thus, to Soviet science must be credited a special social esprit de corps and an intellectual solidarity which occa- sionally have borne enviable fruits (cf. discussion of Flora SSSR)! Today Soviet biology is feeling the same currents of change and the same pressures to be fashionable as biology in America and everywhere, although there is perhaps a little lag. Chief among these currents 1s the decline of descriptive biology and the compensating rise of experimental, particularly “‘molecu- lar” biology (5, 42). Harking back once again to the Edin- burgh botanical meetings (1964), we can see this trend re- flected in the makeup of the Soviet delegation, which included seven physiologists and one taxonomist who was officially listed as a geobotanist (30)! Further evidence, insofar as botany goes, is seen in the decline in the number of taxonomy students ex- perienced in recent years at the Komarov Institute (32). At the same time it is clear from the number of new floristic and monographic efforts that have been started or are being planned for the next Five-Year Plan (1966-70) that the health of descriptive botany in the USSR 1s still very good, perhaps better than'in the USA (5, 9, 10, 22). The major turning points of the Komarov Botanical Insti- tute have been essentially those of the Soviet Academy of Sciences as a whole. For about 10 years after the Revolution the Bolshevik leaders allowed the Academy to carry on busi- ness much as usual, and Academician A. P. Karpinsky (1847— The Institute: Intellectual Milieu 181 1936), elected president of the Academy in 1917, remained at his post. Then in 1927 the regime began to “‘sovietize”’ the Academy—to subject it to the general socialist reconstruction of the Russian State. Gradually, more and more responsibility for Russian science was consolidated in the Academy of Sci- ences, which was reshaped as an arm of the Government and Party for prosecuting the State’s enormous scientific goals. The old 1836 Charter was replaced by a new one, setting up a typical Soviet organization of hierarchically arranged ‘“councils.’’ 6 Without warning, the Academy came under criticism and innuendo from the Party in early 1929, and in the second half of the year investigators screened the entire staff from academi- clans to janitors, and persons at all levels were affected. The Academy was reorganized and many big institutes were cre- ated, among which must be numbered the Botanical Insti- tute, created in late 1931. For the first time Party members were elected into the regular academician ranks. Among the new communist academicians, interestingly, was B. A. Keller, the first director of the Botanical Institute (see also p. 72). One must hasten to add, however, that Keller was a well- recognized geobotanist who no doubt had ample scientific credentials for this post. The basic aim in 1929 was “‘bolshevi- zation” of the Academy: non-Party members in the Acad- emy’s hierarchy were selectively replaced by Party members. This was the ultimate step in bringing the Academy under the direct control of the Party and the State. These events coincided with the beginning of rigorous State economic planning. The First Five-Year Plan, set for the years 1928-32, was not published until 1929, and it was in the middle of this 5-year period that the Principal Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum were merged to form the *’The Russian word coxet (sovet, soviet) means, literally, “council.” 182 Komarov Botanical Institute Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. There seems no doubt that the creation of the Institute was one of the many aspects of “‘sovietizing” and “‘bolshevizing”’ the Academy. By 1930 the Academy was fulfilling the Gov- ernment’s order to prepare annual plans of research pro- grams and submit them for approval. Therefore, the Institute immediately faced two requirements calling for rigid plan- ning, goal-setting, and research programing. The first was the need to participate in the 5-year plans and the second to meet the demands for annual plans of operation. If the Party and Government had not intervened, it is likely that the Principal Botanic Garden and the Botanical Mu- seum, driven by the tremendous momentum of their proud histories and their own cherished programs, would have con- tinued to be independent indefinitely, despite the inefficient overlapping of some of their rival projects. Thus, whatever the consequences at the time, the merger appears in retrospect to have been a good thing. It should also be noted here that in 1930, as a step toward the consolidation of Soviet control over scientific institutions and a prelude to the merger in 1931, the Principal Botanic Garden was placed under the jurisdic- tion of the Academy of Sciences for the first time in the more than 200 years since the Garden’s beginning. The consequences of “‘sovietization’’ of the Academy were radical changes in research operations and the imposition of strict planning requirements. The subsequent “‘bolshevization’’ brought Party control with its ideological restructuring, social orientation, and general conformity. Following the Academy’s initial reorganization in 1929, business returned to normal, albeit on a new basis. The next big upheaval came to the Academy in the late thirties near the close of the Second Five-Year Plan (1933-37). In 1936, Kar- pinsky died and Academician V. L. Komarov (1869-1945) The Institute: Intellectual Miheu 183 was elected president of the Academy. He was by then a bot- anist of great distinction. About the same time, Stalin’s “great” purge inside Russia began, reaching its climax in 1938. This time Party members only were affected. It 1s significant, therefore, that Komarov was not a Party member. The Academy’s managerial staff was thoroughly replaced in this period, and the Academy was compelled to devise more stringent means of internally censoring the publications of its members. The effects of the great purge on the Botanical Institute must remain an unwritten chapter, but a few observations can be made. Keller, a Party member, was replaced as direc- tor in 1936, and he seems to drop out of the Russian botanical scene thereafter, although he was reassigned to another direc- torship in Moscow and lived until the end of World War II (see p. 72). Significantly, however, his permanent successor at the Botanical Institute, B. K. Schischkin, was not a Party member. Without doubt the years 1936-38 were years of apprehension, confusion, and indecision for the leadership at the Institute, as throughout the Academy. By the end of 1938, however, virtually all departments had new heads, and busi- ness was proceeding on a new footing. In many ways these were tragic years, but soon World War II brought untold new tragedy to Leningrad and the Institute. It is difficult if not indiscreet for an outsider to evaluate the role of the Communist Party in the present structure and activ- ities of the Botanical Institute, except to note that the Party definitely does exert an influence. About half of the scientific staff are Party members, and their membership is a well- publicized fact in the Institute, although they do not often speak openly about it, at least to foreigners. Party membership is clearly optional and carries special responsibilities. Further- more, as indicated above, at times in the past Party member- 184 Komarov Botanical Institute ship has carried special hazards with it. Nevertheless, joining the Party brings decided benefits, and those outside may be discriminated against at the higher levels of leadership. Yet it is only fair to say that through the years the various depart- mental heads and other leaders at the Institute have in general represented outstanding scientists in their fields, whether they were Party members or not. It would be grossly incorrect to infer that scientific excellence necessarily has suffered because of Party loyalty. PART 95 A Summary and Postscript CHAPTER i Past, Present,and Future M ore than 250 years ago Russia came under the rule of the sometimes fanatic and ruthless tsar, Peter I. But Peter had a vision, and with devoted though uncompromising zeal he turned his vision into reality by forging a cosmopolitan city of science and culture from the raw boreal wilderness on the delta of the Neva River. The creation of Petersburg in 1703 was extraordinary by any standards. For this and other achievements he won himself a permanent place in the hearts of the Russian people. Peter I, the mortal tsar, has become Peter the Great, the immortal hero. Owing to actions taken by Peter I, a scholarly tradition in botanical research was begun about 1714, almost as soon as the city was born, and this tradition has flourished down through the past two and one-half centuries. Petersburg—later called St. Petersburg, Petrograd, and now Leningrad—soon became the center of botanical as well as other scientific scholarship in Imperial Russia. Today, Leningrad’s Komarov Botanical Institute, modern descendant of Peter’s original “‘Pharmaceu- tical Garden” and Kunstkammer, is the foremost botanical institution in the Soviet Union. More than a century after its 187 188 Komarov Botanical Institute founding, Peter’s garden, which was started to supply medici- nal herbs for his army, was organized into a truly scientific garden, known as the Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Peters- burg; and about the same time (1823) the botanical collections of the Kunstkammer, a cabinet of arts and curios, were orga- nized into a Botanical Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The organizing genius of the Garden was F. E. L. Fischer; of the Museum—C. B. Trinius. The Komarov Botanical Institute was created in 1931 by the merger of Leningrad’s two ancient botanical instituttons— the Principal (formerly Imperial) Botanic Garden and the Botanical Museum. At this time both were member institu- tions of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, although the Garden had just been brought into the Academy the previous year. The new institution was called simply the Botanical Insti- tute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and it was not until 1940 that the Institute was named in honor of Academy President V. L. Komarov, the Institute’s most famous botanist and the most respected botanist in the whole Soviet Union until his death in 1945. Since then the full name has been the ‘‘Botanical Institute in the Name of V. L. Komarov of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.” From the date of its merger the Institute has stood in the vanguard of Soviet botany, particularly descriptive botany (taxonomy, etc.), although today its botanists are also leaders in such phases as the study of the ultrastructure of the chloro- plast and various other sophisticated physiological researches. However, experimental botany has not been its real forte. The newly formed Institute took over from the mother institutions their historic leadership of the Russian (now All-Union) Botanical Society and its official organ, Botanichesky Zhurnal. Here at the Institute has been gathered the largest botanical Past, Present, and Future 189 staff in the USSR, presently numbering approximately 700 persons, including about 200 professional scientists. With more than 250 years of history behind it, the Komar- ov Botanical Institute now ranks among the older botanical institutions in the world and certainly has had one of the rich- est traditions. Scientific botany in Russia really began here, and one can claim fairly that the landmarks in the history of this institution have also been major landmarks in Russian botany as a whole. Over the long years Russian and foreign botanists have crisscrossed the Asian continent again and again, carrying out extensive explorations and collecting almost unparalleled amounts of data and voucher specimens largely for deposit in the centers of St. Petersburg-Leningrad. Plant specimens alone have accumulated to nearly 6 million so that today the Komarov Herbarium ranks as one of three or four largest herbaria in the world, perhaps second to none. The collections, which date back to 1709, are rich in old and new material. Nearly all of the classical exsiccatae sets are repre- sented here. Russian territory has always received the greater attention in the exploratory work, but as early as the 1820s Russian botanists from the Imperial Botanic Garden were reaching beyond their borders to such faraway places as the tropics of Brazil. Today the Institute’s botanists are turning more and more attention to the tropics of Asia and Africa. Of especial interest to North American botanists is the fact that the earliest Alaskan explorations were carried out under the auspices of the St. Petersburg scholars, because Alaska was Russian territory until 1867. The scholars at St. Petersburg were also busy building up a definitive collection of botanical books and periodicals. At present the Komarov Institute’s Library contains about 450,000 volumes. It is by far the leading botanical library in 190 Komarov Botanical Institute the USSR, to which anyone needing to conduct bibliographic research in Russian botanical literature should automatically turn. At the same time it can justly claim to be one of the foremost botanical libraries in the world, having perhaps a half-dozen peers at most. The long roster of directors and staff who have served in the Komarov Botanical Institute or its predecessor institutions includes such outstanding botanical scholars as Pallas, Smel- owsky, Trinius, Fischer, Meyer, Regel, Ruprecht, Trautvetter, Maximowicz, Borodin, Litvinow, Fedtschenko, Komarov, Krishtofovich, Schischkin, and many others, not to mention the many distinguished living botanists. Similarly, the list of scholarly publications emanating from St. Petersburg- Leningrad through the past 250 years reveals a steady flow of floras, handbooks, monographs, historical papers, vegetation maps, and scientific articles. The crowning achievement of Russian taxonomy if not of all Russian botany up to the present time is the 30-volume reference manual on the native plants of the USSR—Flora SSSR (‘Flora of the USSR’’), completed in 1964. It includes more than 17,500 species and fills 22,000 pages of text. This work was masterminded and largely prosecuted by the Insti- tute’s botanists, and it was fitting that the Institute’s 250th anniversary (1714-1964) should have coincided with the completion of the Flora. The successful completion of Flora SSSR almost vindicates the concept of programed research, repugnant as it is to the individual scientist who cherishes his right to choose the topic, time, place, and method of his own research. The Flora Project was completed despite Stalin’s purges and Hitler’s invasion and 900-day starvation blockade of Leningrad in World War II, when more than one Institute botanist slowly starved to death even while conducting research Past, Present, and Future 191 on the Flora. Although few botanists would of their own voli- tion bind themselves to a 33-year, institutional research pro- gram, the merit of the end product is overwhelming and speaks entirely for itself. Professor Heywood, in his foreword to Bobrov’s article in Nature (9) on the history of the Flora Project, sums up the story very well: In these days when there 1s considerable interest, not only in science but also in the ways in which science and scientists organ- ize their work, the following account by Prof. Bobrov of the history and details of the planning and execution of the Flora URSS, often under conditions in which sheer survival must have been many scientists’ main pre-occupation, constitutes an important and _fas- cinating contribution to the history and sociology of science. In early 1966, Flora SSSR was accorded the very high honor of being recommended for a Lenin Prize. On December 15-18, 1965, the Komarov Botanical Insti- tute officially celebrated its 250th anniversary in a special 4- day symposium held in the Leningrad Philharmonic Hall. About 2000 botanists attended from Leningrad’s scientific institutions and from many cities throughout the country, representing 15 Union Republics. Distinguished foreign botanists bringing greetings to the meeting included K. Motes and H. Stubbe (Germany), R. S00 (Hungary), D. Iordanov (Bulgaria), E. Pop (Rumania), and T. Ahti (Finland). Academician A. L. Kursanov represented the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and the Mayor of Leningrad, V. J. Isajev, acting on behalf of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, awarded the Institute the “Order of the Red Banner of Labor.” This high award was officially signed on October 6, 1965, by then-President Anastas Mikoyan, and the accompanying proclamation took note of the Institute’s great service to the cause of biological science during the past 250 years. This official proclamation is published with appropriate remarks 192 Komarov Botanical Institute as a preface to the November 1965 issue of Botanichesky Zhurnal. °° Today there is every indication that Soviet botany with its experimental branches aggressively developing as in the West is also experiencing the same philosophical and theoretical ferment. Russian botanists seem to be less confined by official dogma (e.g., Lysenkoism) now than at any time in recent history. The latest Five-Year Plan (1966-70) calls for redoubled efforts in every established branch of botany and for the devel- opment of new methods and directions of research. The Komarov Institute’s own program (22) is to be intense and varied. It calls for vast new efforts in floristics, systematics, and geobotany, and anticipates an important role in the Interna- tional Biological Program (IBP). More stress is to be laid on the study of infraspecific variation and evolution, and on all modern methods in systematics. Research in anatomy, mor- phology, and embryology are to be strengthened, and new departures in the realms of phycology, mycology, lichenology, and bryology are anticipated. Surely these goals will not all be attained, but the general health of descriptive botany clearly seems destined to remain at a high level. Classical methodology has persisted more stubbornly in Soviet than American botany. Notwithstanding certain unfortunate consequences of this, it is important to take note of the valuable dividends. Soviet botanists seem to be able to consolidate and continue major historical efforts to ex- plore, describe, and map native floras and plant communities, and, furthermore, these goals apparently are still fashionable. The new 5-year program seems to insure that Soviet botanists 6°Information on this celebration was provided by a Tass news bulletin of December 15, 1965, relayed to the Smithsonian Institution by telegram from the American Embassy in Moscow, and by Director Al. Fédorov in correspondence, March 1966. Past, Present, and Future 193 will be pressing their hallowed socialist trinity of biological goals—exploration, exploitation, and conservation—with even greater zeal and vigor. In an era when American botanists are becoming self-conscious about the value of herbaria, Soviet botanists are talking about creating a whole new net- work of regional herbaria (4). If there is any realm in which Soviet botanists are likely to face American botanists with an effective challenge in the coming years, it is in the realm of tropical biology. In recent years many Soviet botanists, both from the Komarov Institute and from other Soviet institutions, have gotten a taste of tropical research through firsthand experience,. and it is clear that we have barely seen the beginning of Soviet activity in the tropics. Apparently there will be a large Soviet tropical effort in IBP. Because much exploratory research on the tropics must necessarily proceed along classical lines, Soviet botany may actually be in a better posture today for tropical studies than American botany, owing to the stronger persis- tence of classical methodology and the greater sympathy for herbaria in the USSR. The herbaria are the national ‘‘ar- chives” that must be “‘stuffed” for future study before it is too late. It is clear that the gathering race among all biologists to study the tropics while they can is going to highlight the critical shortage of descriptive biologists of all types and give the lie to the arguments of those who do not find enduring value in the more descriptive aspects of biology. In this “‘race,’’ we may find that the philosophical conservatism of Soviet taxonomy will suddenly prove its strongest asset. In any event, we can only hope that it will be a friendly race and that the IBP will bring much fruitful cooperation between Soviet and American colleagues, since neither we nor the Russians have full access to all tropical regions of the world, and we can both profit greatly from cooperation. 194 Komarov Botanical Institute There is good cause, I feel, for hoping that cooperation between American and Russian botanists will continue to in- crease. The general realization 1s growing on all sides that scientific cooperation is essential and that in most areas of science it can take place without first achieving political com- munity. The language barrier is still a formidable one, but modern technology is rapidly providing ways around this impediment. All considered, the present time seems more auspicious than any time in the last several decades for in- creased exchange and cooperation. It is my hope that this short history of the Komarov Bo- tanical Institute will help acquaint a wider group of American and other non-Russian botanists with the rich tradition of botanical scholarship during the past 250 years in the city of Peter the Great. The Komarov Institute is truly one of the world’s great botanical centers, and no botanist, indeed no biologist, should be unaware of its great resources. Today the Institute is quite accessible to foreign botanists, and it is a great shame that so few take advantage of this. Opportunities for exchange and collaboration seem at present to be limited primarily by our own initiative and patience. The scientists at the Institute, from Director Fedorov on down, seem ready and willing to do everything in their power to foster greater contact and to facilitate the work of visiting scholars. If this book contributes in any way toward a greater understanding between Russian and American botanists, its purpose will have been more than fulfilled. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute unless otherwise noted Scenes in the Arboretum-Park of the Komarov Botanical Institute. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Botanical Museum, housing public displays, completed in 1960. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Inside views of greenhouses —Jeft, large floating leaves of Victoria amazonica; right, part of cacti collection. Photograph by Arthur Cronquist Gardeners tend outdoor plantings beside part of extensive greenhouse-conservatory complex of Komarov Botanical Institute. Photographs courtesy Komarov Botanical Institute Interior of Palm Conservatory showing tropical collections in 1965. 195 Chronological Table of Significant Events in the History of the Komarov Botanical Institute in St. Petersburg-Leningrad YEAR BOTANIC GARDEN BOTANICAL MUSEUM 11714 Aptekarsky Ogorod (“*Pharmaceuti- Kunstkammer, which housed some cal Garden’’) founded on A ptekar- botanical collections, established sky Ostrov (“Pharmaceutical by Peter I. Island”) in Nevka River by Peter I (1672-1725), as subordinate unit of State Apothecary under Medical Office. 11725 Aptekarsky Ogorod renamed *‘Gar- Kunstkammer affiliated with newly den of Her Imperial Majesty founded Imperial Academy of Catherine I’ (1684 ?-1727), after Sciences. Peter's wife, and supervised by Imperial Court. 1735 | Garden renamed ‘“‘Medicinal Gar- den” (Meditzinsky Sad). J. G. Siegesbeck (1686-1755) ap- pointed director. 1 736 | Primitiae Florae Petropolitanae|by Siegesbeck issued; 1275 species. | 742 | Siegesbeck leaves, and Garden has no scientific leadership until 1765. 1765 | Johann Falk (1730-1774) named director. 1768 | Martin Terechowsky (1740-1796) named director (first Russian). 1784 Part | of Flora Rossica by P. S. Pallas (1741-1811) issued. (Vol. I, perl 784 Volo 25/88: | Volpe: 1h 1815.) 196 Komarov Botanical Institute YEAR BOTANIC GARDEN BOTANICAL MUSEUM 1796 | Catalogus Plantarum Hort Impeni- alis Medici Botanici Petropolitam in Insula A pothecaria, compiled by Terechowsky in 1793, issued; 1406 species. G. F. Sobolewsky (1741-1807) named director; assisted by T. A. Smelowsky (1769-1815). 1798 | Medicinal Garden renamed ‘‘Medico-Botanic Garden”’ of the Academy of Medicine and Surgery 1799 | Flora Petropolitana by Sobolewsky published. 1801-| Sanktpeterburgskaya Flora by 1802 Sobolewsky published. 1806 | F.H. Stephan (1757-1814) named director. 1809 | Prof. Jason V. Petrov named director. 1813 | Petrov directorship ends. 1821 | G.H. Langsdorff (1774-1852) and L. Riedel (1790-1861) begin collecting in Brazil (1821-1835). 1822 | Count Razumovsky, patron of Gorenky botanic garden near Moscow, dies. C hronological Table 197 YEAR BOTANIC GARDEN BOTANICAL MUSEUM 1823 | Reorganization leads to formation C. B. Trinius (1778-1844) joins of ‘‘Imperial Botanic Garden of Kunstkammer staff, curates St. Petersburg” under jurisdiction neglected botanical collections. of Medical Department of Min- Botanical Museum established with- istry of Home Affairs. in Kunstkammer. F.E. L. Fischer (1782-1854) named director. Organized development of her- barium begins; building of greenhouses begins; public exhibit museum is founded. 1824 | Library started. 1825 | Transfer of rarest plants and valu- able library in Razumovsky’s Gorenky botanic garden to St. Petersburg from Moscow completed. 1826 Gorenky herbarium of Razumovsky purchased. 1827 Collection of G. F. Hoffmann (1760 —1826) acquired. 1828 F. A. Marschall von Bieberstein (1768-1826) collection purchased. 1830 | Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg put under jurisdiction of Ministry of the Court. 1831—] L. Riedel and B. Luschnat send 1835 plants from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) to Garden. 198 YEAR 1835 1842 1844 1850 1855 1863 1866 1871 Komarov Botanical Institute BOTANIC GARDEN Index Seminum with supplement Accendut Animadversiones Botanicae Nonnulae, first taxo- nomic journal of Garden, begins (presently only a seed exchange list known as Delectus Seminum). [ Flora Rossica by K. F. Ledebour (1785-1851), who was not associated with either Garden or Museum, published; Vols 1-4, 1842-1853.] C. A. Meyer named director; only botanist to serve as director of both Garden and Museum; also, second director of both. E. A. Regel (1815-1892) named director. Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg put under jurisdiction of Ministry of State Properties. E.R. Trautvetter (1809-1889) named director. First fascicle of Acta Horti Petropolitani published. BOTANICAL MUSEUM Herbarium moved to new quarters and Botanical Museum formally established as separate institution within the Academy; Trinius named first director. C. A. Meyer (1795-1855) named director. Beitrage zur Pflanzenkunde des Russischen|R eiches|first/ published (discontinued in 1859). F. J. Ruprecht (1814-1870) named director. Ruprecht’s ‘“‘Geobotanical Investi- gations on Chernozems”’ published. C. J. Maximowicz (1827-1891) named director. Chronological Table 199 YEAR BOTANIC GARDEN BOTANICAL MUSEUM 1875 | E. A. Regel named director (second term). 1892 | A.F. Batalin (1847-1896) named director. 1893 S. I. Korshinsky (1861-1900) named director. 1896 | A.A. Fischer von Waldeim (1839-1918) named director. 1898 Exsiccatae distribution of Russian plants initiated by Korshinsky. 1899 | Victoria amazonica and palm conservatories completed. 1900 M. S. Voronin (1838-1903) named acting director. 1901 | Bulletin du Jardin Imperial Botan- ique de St.-Petersbourg first published. 1902 | ‘Bulletin of Plant Disease Control” Academician I. P. Borodin (1847— (changed to Morbi Plantarum 1930) named director. in 1907) begins. Travaux de Musée Botanique de l’Academie des Sciences de St.- Petersbourg, successor to B eitrage, begins. 1912 | “Annals of the Experiment Station for Seed-Testing”’ begins. 200 YEAR SiN 33 1914 ILS) 1916 1917 1918 1919 Noa 1922 Komarov Botanical Institute -BOTANIC GARDEN New Herbarium-Library Building dedicated at 200th anniversary celebration. Imperial Botanic Garden named in honor of Peter the Great at 200th anniversary jubilee. [St. Petersburg renamed Petrograd.] Academician B. L. Isatchenko (187 1- 1948) becomes first ‘‘elected”’ director. Imperial Botanic Garden renamed ‘Principal Botanic Garden of Petrograd.” Garden renamed “Principal Botanic Garden of the Russian Republic of the USSR” (RSFSR). Notulae Systematicae first published (vascular plants only). Garden subordinated to the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture of the Russian Republic. Cryptogamic series added to Notulae Systematicae. BOTANICAL MUSEUM Russian Botanical Society (now called All-Union Botanical Society) founded. Journal Botanique de! URSS (Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR) first issued by Russian Botanical Society. Director Borodin serves as vice president of Academy of Sciences, 1917-1919. Chronological Table 201 YEAR BOTANIC GARDEN BOTANICAL MUSEUM 1924 | [Petrograd renamed Leningrad. 1925 | Garden assigned “All-Union” im- portance and renamed “Principal Botanic Garden of the USSR.” 1929 | First Five-Year Plan published, charging Garden’s Herbarium with responsibility for drawing up plan for a “Flora of the USSR” (Flora SSSR) 1930 | Garden transferred to jurisdiction of Academician V. L. Komarov (1 869- Soviet Academy of Sciences. 1945) named director. Authors solicited for Flora SSSR. 1931 | B.A. Fedtschenko (1872-1947) submits first formal plan for Flora SSSR. First All-Union Conference of Geo- botanists and Plant Taxonomists meets in Leningrad and author- izes Flora Project. V. L. Komarov elected editor-in- chief of Flora SSSR and E. G. Bobrov elected secretary. Principal Botanic Garden merged with Botanical Museum to form the “Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.” 202 1931 1932 1934 1936 1936 1938 1938 1940 1941 1944 1947 Komarov Botanical Institute BOTANICAL INSTITUTE B. A. Keller (1874-1945) named first director. First 5 months spent moving collections and books of former Botanical Museum to Botanic Garden on Aptekarsky Island, where new Botanical Insti- tute is located. Serious writing on Flora SSSR begins. Acta Horti Petropolitani and Travaux de Musee Botanique de lAcademie des Sciences de TURSS cease publication and the new Acta Instituti Bo- tanict (Nomine V. L. Komarov [after 1939]) Acaa- emiae Scientiarum URSS begins, with two series. Sovetskaya Botanika, bimonthly journal, begins (successor to Bulletin du Jardin. . .). First two volumes of Flora SSSR published; Komar- ov transferred to Moscow. Academician Komarov elected president of the Acad- emy of Sciences of the USSR. Keller transferred to directorship of Principal Botan- ic Garden of USSR in Moscow; J. D. Zinserling and E. G. Bobrov (1902- ) serve consecutively as acting directors. B. K. Schischkin (1886-1963) named director. Sovetskaya Botanika now published under masthead of Academy of Sciences. Botanical Institute named in honor of V. L. Komarov. [Blockade period of World War II. First postwar tropical expedition, led by Schischkin and Juzepezuk (Brazil and Argentina). YEAR 1948 1949 2 1956 1960 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Chronological Table BOTANICAL INSTITUTE Sovetskaya Botanika united with Journal Botanique de I'URSS (Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR) to form one bimonthly periodical called Botanichesky Zhurnal, published by the Academy of Sciences as the official organ of the All-Union Botanical So- ciety of the USSR. V. F. Kuprevicz (1897— ) named director (present- ly [1967] editor-in-chief of Botanichesky Zhurnal). P. A. Baranov (1892-1962) named director. First volume of Flora Sporovykh Rasteniy SSSR (‘Flora of the Cryptogamic Plants of the USSR’’) published. Botanichesky Zhurnal becomes monthly. Reorganization into 24 laboratories. Postwar reconstruction phase ends, including new building for Botanical Museum. Al. A. Federov (1906— _) named director. Dedication of new public displays in Botanical Mu- seum. Last (30th) volume of Flora SSSR published. 250th anniversary of Institute. Notulae Systematicae, both vascular plant and cryp- togamic series, replaced by Novitates series. Institute awarded ‘‘Order of Red Banner of Labor’ by Presidium of Supreme Soviet (October 6). Joint celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Komarov Institute and the 5Oth anniversary of the All-Union Botanical Society of the USSR (De- ember 15-18). Flora SSSR recommended for Lenin Prize. 203 vie Re ferences : SHETLER, STANWYN G. 1965. Komarov Botanical Institute, Leningrad. Plant Science Bulletin //(1): 1-3. Lesepev, D.V., S.J. Liescuirz, and M.M. Lopkina. 1962. An outline of history of the V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (1714- 1961). Acad. Sci. USSR Press, Moscow-Leningrad. 48 pp. (Translated by D.M. Kershner and G.E. Ben; edited by P.A. Baranov.) [Based primarily on reference No. 8, but updated. | Pejopos, Ax. A. 1964. Boranuueckomy nuctutyry um. B. .1. Komapopa Akajemun Hayk CCCP 250 aer. Botannuecnnil KypHad 49(11): I-VI. Féporov, ALt.A. 1964. Botanicheskomu Institutu im. V.L. Komarova Akademii Nauk SSSR 250 let {““Yo the Bo- tanical Institute in the name of V.L. Komarov of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR — 250 years” |]. Bo- tanichesky Zhurnal 49(11): I-VIII. Bacnibpuenko, W. T. 1965. Vepdapuii Boranwueckoro nuctTu- Tyta uM. B, J. homapospa Akajlemun Hayk CCCP. Botann- WeCKHH KYpHad JO: 1481-1485. 1Transliterated titles of Russian articles are given in italics like foreign language titles. Translated titles are given in brackets [], and unless other- wise indicated the articles were translated by me for my own use only. Articles to which only passing reference is made are cited in footnotes and are not included here. 205 206 Komarov Botanical Institute VassILcZENKO, I.T. 1965. Gerbariy Botanicheskogo Insti- tuta im. V.L. Komarova Akademi Nauk SSSR [‘“The herbarium of the Botanical Institute ...”’| chesky Zhurnal 50: 1481-1485. . Botani- Taxtagman, A. J., A. U. Toamaues, uw An. A. Peqopos. 1965. Msyyenne (paoppr CCCP, foctukeHusa MW TepcCieRTHBEI. Borannyeckui #ypHad 30: 1365-1373. Taxutajan, A.L., A.J. TotmatrcHev, and An.A. FEDorROov. 1965. Izuchenie flory SSSR, dostizheniya i perspektivy [Investigation of the flora of the USSR — achievements and prospects” |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 1365-1373. [Lead article of issue. | . Hurtén, Eric. 1940. History of botanical exploration in Alaska and Yukon Territories from the time of their discovery to 1940. Botaniska Notiser 1940: 289-346. AspopuuH, H. A. 1965. Botannueckuii cay Borannueckoro nactutyta uM. B. JI. Romapopa Akajlemau Hayk CCCP. Boranwyeckui #xypHal 50: 1497-1502. Avrorin, N.A. 1965. Botanicheskiy Sad Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Komarova Akademii Nauk SSSR [ “Botanic Garden of the Botanical Institute .. .” |. Bota- nichesky Zhurnal 50: 1497-1502. Baranov, P.A., and E.G. Boprov (editors). 1957. Ot Aptekarskogo Ogoroda do Botanicheskogo Instituta — ocherki po istorii Botanicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR [“From Aptekarsky Ogorod to the Botanical Institute — outline of the history of the Botanical Insti- tute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR” |]. Acad. Sci. USSR Press, Moscow-Leningrad. 307 pp. Contributors: P.A. Baranov, E.G. Bobrov, B.K. Schisch- kin, A.N. Krishtofovich, V.P. Savicz, V.B. Sochava, E.M. Lavrenko, V.D. Aleksandrova, V.L. Nekrassova, V.G. Aleksandrov, M.S. Yakovlev, V.A. Brilliant, I.N. Kono- valov, A.P. Shennikov, S.J. Sokolov, V.I. Polyansky, I.T. Vassilezenko, D.V. Lebedev. lg We 133 References 207 This is the most important single resource in this list of references, after which comes reference No. 2. Bosrov, E.G. 1965. Preparation of Flora URSS. (Fore- word by V.H. Heywood). Nature 205: 1046-1049. (March 13, 1965) Boopos, HK. I. 1965. «@®aopa CCCP», padora Hay Hell u 3HadeHHe DTOFO U3faHua. Boranwueckui #ypHad JO: 1374- 1383. Bosrov, E.G. 1965. “Flora SSSR,” rabota nad ney 1 zna- chenie etogo izdaniya |“ ‘Flora SSSR, its preparation and significance” |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 1374-1383. Bamatunu, B. H. 1960. Ilyresoqureib mo napky borann- ueckoro uucTuTyTa. M3qarerbctBo Akajlemun Hayk CCCP, Mocksa-Jlenunrpag. 124 crp. ZAMYATNIN, B.N. 1960. Putevoditel po parku Botan- cheskogo Instituta |“Guide to the park of the Botanical Institute”]. Acad. Sci. USSR Press, Moscow-Lenin- grad. 124 pp. Jyxe, 10. A., ao B. C. Coaofopunkopa. 1959. BorannuecKuii cay] — llapk Bo Bce BpeMeHa Tosa. UszarerpeTBo AkajleMuu nayk CCCP, Mocksa-Jlennurpag. (Pororpadun EK. B. Cu- HeibHuKOBA; [lox pexakuuei pod. C. A. Coxososa. ) Luxs, J.A., and V.S. Sotopovnikova. 1959. Botanicheskiy Sad—park vo vse vremena goda |“Botanic Garden—the park in all seasons of the year” |. Acad. Sci. USSR Press, Moscow-Leningrad. [34 pp. — unnumbered]. (Photo- graphs by E.V. Sinelnikov; edited by S.J. Sokolov). A pictorial guide to the park with minimal text that is given both in Russian and English. Baxtees, ®. X., un E. C. Uapayapagse. 1965. Myseit Oorann- ueckoro uHcTuTyta uM. B. .I. Komapopa Akajlemun Hayk CCCP. Boranuyeckuii wxypHad 50: 1486-1490. Bakuteev, F.Ku., and E.S. Cuavcnavapze. 1965. Muzey Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Komarova Akademii 208 5). 16. 19: Komarov Botanical Institute Nauk SSSR [Museum of the Botanical Institute...” |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 1486-1490. Bosrov, E.G. 1963. Boris K. Schischkin — 1886-1963. Taxon 12: 273-276. Bacuapyenko, V1. T. 1962. Uaper Aaexcanzposuy BapaHos (28 VII 1892 —17 V 1962). Boranmuecknit #ypHaa 47: 12S W228. VASSILCZENKO, I.T. 1962. Pavel Aleksandrovich Baranov (28 VII 1892 —17 V 1962). Botanichesky Zhurnal 47: 1225-1228. Howarp, RicHarp A., BurpetrE L. WaAGENKNECHT, and Peter S. Green (compilers). 1963. International di- rectory of botanical gardens. Regnum Vegetabile 28: 1-120. Cemujecatunatuietue B. I. homapopa. 1944. boranmueckuit KypHat COCP 29: 147-150. (Peqarmus ) Semidesyatipyatiletie V. L. Komarova [“Seventy-fifth year of V.L. Komarov”]. 1944. Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR 29: 147-150. (By the editors.) B. I. Romapos. 1945. bBorannuecknii #xypHaa CCCP 30: 242- 244. (Peqakuna ) V.L. Komarov. 1945. Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR 30: 242- 244. (By the editors. ) JInmomm, C. IO. 1945. Nh ucropun cucreMaTukH, ().10pucTHkKH HM reorpaduu pactenuii B Akajlemun Hayk. botanmueckuil mYypHad 30: 99-114. Lipscuitz, S.J. 1945. K istorii sistematiki, floristiki i geo- grafii rasteniy v Akademii Nauk |“On the history of systematics, floristics and plant geography in the Acad- emy of Sciences”|. Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR 30: 99-114. 20. PALS Mada 23% Vets References 209 VUCINICH, ALEXANDER. 1956. The Soviet Academy of Sci- ences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. 157 pp. Vapuuckasa, VW. A., Il. U. Jopodees, B. A. Camptauna, H. C. Cuurupesckas, u WW. A. Ulainnna. 1965. Ilaeodorann- yweckHe ko.IeKuMuM Botanmueckoro unctutyta uM. B. .I. homapopa Akajemuu Hayk CCCP. Botrannueckuit wypHad 50: 1490-1497. ILjrnsKkaya, I.A., P.I. Dororrev, V.A. Samy ina, N.S. SNicI- REVSKAYA, and I.A. SHitkina. 1965. Paleobotaniche- skie Rollektsii Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Koma- rova Akademi Nauk SSSR |‘‘Paleobotanical collections of the Botanical Institute ...”|. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 1490-1497. Becnaaopa, 3. VT. 1965. Wndopmannsa o tTekymeii padote Hayunoro Coseta 10 upodseme «buno10rmueckne OCHOBBI palHOHaIbHOTO MCHOAb30BAHHA, Ipeodpa3s0BaHuA HW OXPaHbl pactuTeibHoro Mupa>. Bborannuecknii #®ypHad JO: 1503- I5Or Brspatova, Z.G. 1965. Informatsiya o tekushchey rabote nauchnogo soveta po probleme “biologicheskie osnovy ratsionalnogo ispolzovaniya preobrazovaniya 1 okhrany rastite’nogo mura’ [Information on the current work of the Scientific Council on the problem: ‘the biological basis of rational use, regeneration and conservation of the vegetation’”’|. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 1503-1504. Akosies, M. C., u M. ®. Jlanniopa. 1964. Tamara Bacnana Teopruesnya Aaekcangzpopa (6 VI 1887—16 I 1964). Borannyeckuli wkypHar 49: 1820-1825. YAKOVLEV, M.S., and M.F. Danivova. 1964. Pamyati Va- siliya Georgiyevicha Aleksandrova (6 VI 1887—16 I 1964) {Recollections of V.G. Aleksandrov”|. Bota- nichesky Zhurnal 49: 1820-1825. Pejopos, Au. A. 1962. Copetckne OoTaHuKu B Majonesun. Borannyeckui ypHal 47: 1884-1849. 210 De Die 28. 29: Komarov Botanical Institute Féporov, An. A. 1962. Sovetskie botaniki v Indonezi [‘‘Soviet botanists in Indonesia” |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 47: 1844-1849. Hatraipnu, H. B. 1963. boranuuecknii cag Borop. Borann- yeCKA WypHal 45: 1554-1566. NaraLjin, N.B. 1963. Botanicheskiy Sad Bogor {Bogor Botanic Garden” |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 48: 1554-1566. . Akosses, M. C. 1964. Iloe3qxa 8 Boropcxui Ooranmueckun cay, (Wujonesna) (2 alpeam 1963 r. — 28 mapta 1964 T.). Boranwyeckui ypHad 49: 1826-1838. YaKoviev, M.S. 1964. Poyezdka v Bogorskiy Botanichesk1y Sad (Indoneziya) (2 April 1963 —28 March 1964) [“Trip to Bogor Botanic Garden” |]. Botanichesky Zhurnal 49: 1826-1838. Bouanues, B. I. 1961. Tloesaxa zp Erunercruit pation O0se- unenHon Apadckoi PecnyOinkn. Botanmueckui #KypHal 46: 1058-1062. BorcuHantsEv, V.P. 1961. Poyezdka v Egipetskiy rayon Ob” yedinennoy Arabskoy Respubliki [Trip to the Egyp- tian region of the United Arab Republic”]. Botani- chesky Zhurnal 46: 1058-1962. Bouannes, B. TH. 1963. Bropas moe3gka B OAP. borann- yeckui KypHad 48: 929-935. BotcHantseEv, V.P. 1963. Vtoraya poyezdka v OAR [“Sec- ond trip to UAR”’]. Botanichesky Zhurnal #8: 929-935. Bouanues, B. I. 1965. Ovuepk pactuteipnoctu OObeqMHeH- Hoi ApadOckoit PecnyOanku (Erunra). borannyeckumt ayp- Haat 50: 281-290. Borcuantsev, V.P. 1965. Ocherk rastite?nosti Ob” yedi- nennoy Arabskoy Respubliki (Egipta) |“Outline of the vegetation of the United Arab Republic (Egypt)”]. Botanichesky Zhurnal 50: 281-290. 0) Bile 32. Bo Sr References 211 Tuxomupos, b. A. 1964. X MewjyHapogupii OoTannuecknii KOHTpecc B OuHOypre (3-12 aBrycta 1964 r.). Boranu- 4ueCKHH wKypHal 49: 1841-1846. TrkHomiroy, B.A. 1964. X Mezhdunarodnyy Botaniche- skiy Kongress v Edinburge (3-12 August 1964) [“X In- ternational Botanical Congress in Edinburgh” |. Botani- chesky Zhurnal 49: 1841-1846. Tosopay, A. Tr. 1961. O HayuHO u MpakTw4yeckon esaTelb- Hoctu Borannyeckoro caja Boranwueckoro MHCTHTYTa UM. B. J. Komapopa AH CCCP (bUHa). botannuecknii #xypHal 46: 297-306. Gotovacy, A.G. 1961. O nauchnoy i prakticheskoy deya- telnosti Botanicheskogo Sada Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Komarova AN SSSR (BINa) [“On the scien- tific and practical work of the Botanic Garden of the Botanical Institute . . .”|. Botanichesky Zhurnal 46: 297-306. Cuater, A.O. 1965. Exchange visits of scientists between the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. and the Royal Society. Royal Society, Burlington House, London. 12 pp. Lanjouw, J., and F.A. SraFLeu (compilers). 1964. Index Herbariorum. Part |. The herbaria of the world. 5th ed. Regnum Vegetabile 3/: 1-251. Rapnmenko, A. C. 1962. Padota Hay4Horo cemuHapa OTjela reodotanuku Boranwueckoro nuctutyta um. B. J. Rhoma- popa AH CCCP 3a 1961-1962 rr. borannuecknit #KxypHad 47: 1706-1707. KarPenko, A.S. 1962. Rabota nauchnogo seminara Otdela Geobotaniki Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Koma- rova AN SSSR za 1961-1962 [Work of the scientific seminar of the Department of Geobotany of the Botani- cal Institute . . . during 1961-1962”]. Botanichesky Zhurnal #7: 1706-1707. 212 3) 36. Sic 38. 39. 40. apts 12. Komarov Botanical Institute Rapnenko, A. C. 1964. Padora HayaHoro cemuHapa OTyera reodoraHuku Boranuueckoro uuctutyta uM. B. J. Koma- popa AH CCCP 3a 1962-1963 rr. Botanuueckni KypHat 49: 156-159. Karpenko, A.S. 1964. Rabota nauchnogo seminara Otdela Geobotaniki Botanicheskogo Instituta im. V.L. Koma- rova AN SSSR za 1962-1963 {See translation of (34) |. Botanichesky Zhurnal 49: 156-159. Bodpos, E. Tr. 1963. Cocrosnve uw HepcilekTMBbl W3yueHuA oTeuecTBeHHOH (ioppl. Botannueckuit wypHal 48: 1729- 1740. Bosrov, E.G. 1963. Sostoyanie i perspektivy izucheniya otechestvennoy flory [“Status and prospects of investi- gations of the native flora”]. Botanichesky Zhurnal 48: 1729-1740. [With English summary. ] Komapos, B. I. (pefaxtop). 1934-64. @zopa CCCP. WUs- Jjateapctpo Akajlemuu Hayk CCCP, Mocksa-Jlenuurpag. 30 TOM. Komaroy, V.L. (editor). 1934-64. FloraSSSR. Acad. Sci. USSR Press, Moscow-Leningrad. 30 vols. Srronson, Ernst, and Joser Brozex. 1965. Trends in some areas of Soviet biomedical research. Science 150: 1687- 1689 (24 December). SHinners, Liroyp H. 1962. Evolution of the Gray’s and Small’s manual ranges. Sida J: 1-32. JInnuenckui, MU. A. (pegaxtop). Or pexaxropa. Hopoctu cuc- TeMATUKU BEICINAX pacTeHul 1964: 3-4. Lincuevsky, I.A. (editor). 1964. Ot redaktora |“From the editorship” ]. Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascu- larium 1964: 3-4. JEANNERET, Mars. 1965. Scholarly publishing in the USSR. Scholarly Books in America, July 1965: 4-8. SHETLER, STANWYN G. 1963. Botany — A passing phase? AIBS Bulletin 13: 23-25. Index Illustrations are indicated by boldface type. Being un- numbered, their position is given relative to numbered pages by using the words after and facing. The latter term is used for illustrations found only on a facing page. The former term indicates illustrations on subsequent pages other than a facing one or in addition to a facing one. Most entries are made without distinction between the present Komarov Botanical Institute and its mother institu- tions, the Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Imperial Botanic Garden. Persons inter- ested specifically in one of these three institutions should look first under their individual entries. Among other entries in- stitutional breakdown is sometimes given when necessary or helpful, and for this purpose the shorter designations Botan- ical Institute, Botanical Museum, and Botanic Garden, res- pectively, are used. Insofar as possible, correct initials and dates of birth and death are given for each person mentioned in the text. When these initials and/or dates have been added only here in the Index, they are placed in square brackets, “‘[].”” Authors are indexed only when cited by name. For con- venience, in a few cases where many pages are indexed under a given individual, e.g., see Schischkin, B. K., pages on which the person was only cited or quoted as an author are indicated separately. ZA} 214 Komarov Botanical Institute A Abramov, I. 1. [1912- ], 121 Abramova, A. L.[1915- J, 114 Academic Council of Botanical Insti- tute, 134-135 academicians, 23,27, 28, 31, 35,44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 61, 64, 72, 86, 87, 89, 126, 127, 139, 143, 144, 145, 180, 181, 182, 191, 199, 200, 201, 202 Academies of Sciences of the Union Republics, 77, 132,156, 157, 174-175 Academy of Medicine and Surgery, 27, 28, 196 Academy of Sciences of “Red” China, 80 Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 15, after 18, 54, 73, 92, 94, 134, 144, 154, 158,173,188 academic-social stratification, 89, 126 branches, 78, 127, 132 chair of plant systematics, 88 Charter replaced, 181 collective planning and program- ing, 132, 174-175, 182 Council for the Investigation of Natural Resources, 94 Division of General Biology, 124, 133 headquarters transferred, 88 International Biological Program, 174-175 library, 130 member institutes, 2 3—24, 40, 65, 67-69, 174-175, 177, 181-182, 201 membership, 76, 77, 78, 81, 92, 105, 126, 127 mission and goals, 1 31—136, 174-175, 176-177, 181-183 officers, 23, 67, 78, 87, 88, 89, 180-181, 182-183, 188, 200, 202 relationship of Botanical Institute, 180-184, 191, 201 reorganization, 132, 181-182 reorientation, 1 31—132 role of Government and Party, 181-184 Scientific Council, 174 U.S. National Academy of Sciences compared, 177 See also academicians; All-Union Botanical Society ; Imperial Academy of Sciences; publications. Accendut Animadversiones Botanicae Nonnulae, 36, 198 Acta Horti Petropolitani, 37, 38, 39, 58, 166, 198, 202 Russian title, 166 Acta Instituti Botanici founded, 166, 202 separate series, 108, 166-167 Adansonia, 167 adaptation, 84, 95,99 Admiralty. See Old Admiralty. aerial photography, 101 Aeroflot, 11 Africa, 79, 80, 103, 104, 112, 189 agriculture, 34, 78-79, 83, 95, 96, 98, 108, 132,154 institutions, | 14 organizations, 35,40, 79, 200 agronomy, 93 Ahu, T., 191 Akademia Nauk SSSR, 15 See also Academy of Sciences of the USSR; Imperial Academy of Sciences. Alaska, 9, 30-32, 46, 57, 189 Alberta, 11 Alchemilla, 9\ Index Aleksandrov, V. G. (1887-1964), 107-108, 109, 206, 209 Alesksandrov, V. J.(1906-—_ ), 109, 122, facing 130 Aleksandrova, O. G. (2-1942), 108 Aleksandrova, V. D., 206 Aleutian Islands, 30, 31 algae, 49, 91,114, 127 algology, 121 See also phycologist; phycology. alkaloid plants, 96 All-Union Botanical Society (VBO), 50-54, facing 59, 76, 87, 134, 169, 170, 173, 188, 200, 203 All-Union Conferences. See conferences. alpine botany, 98, 109 Altai Territory, 75 Amazon Basin, 33 See also Brazil. America. See USA. American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, 1 33 American Embassy in Moscow, 192 American Institute of Biological Sciences, 115, 133 Americans, 12 See also USA. Amman, J. (1707-41), 64 anatomist, 108, 109 anatomy, 39, 75, 78, 79, 95, 106, 107, 108, 122, 133,167, 192 “Anatomy of Plants,’ 108 Anchorage, 12 angiosperms, 106, 107. See also specific groups. animals, 44 ‘Annals of the Experiment Station for Seed-Testing,” 38, 199 anniversary celebrations All-Union Botanical Society (5Oth), 50-51, 52, 203 Imperial Botanic Garden (200th), 40, 68, 200 DMS Komarov Botanical Institute (250th), 52, 68, 77, 120, 190-192, 203 Antarctica, 114 antibiotics, 71, 109 apomuixis, 151,155 Aptekarsky Island, 34, 46, 63, 64, 65, 68, 71, 202 Aptekarsky Ogorod, 25, 26, 46, 195 Aptekarsky Ostrov, 13,15, 25,195 aquatic plants, 33, 71-72, after 194, 199 arboretum and park, 34, 71-72, 91, 5 Wika, 335) See also greenhouses and con- servatories ; plantings. arctic botany, 9, 57-58, 95, 114, 115, N37 USSSA. ys, Jes Arctic Circle, 3 “Arctic Flora of the USSR,” 57, 58, 152 Arctic Urals, 57 Argentina, 104, 111, 117, 202 arid lands, 114 Arkadyev, G. V. (1899 Armenia, 75 Armenian Academy of Sciences, 105, 127 aroids, 135 Asia, 30, 137 Central, 39, 81, 88, 89, 113, 127 Eastern, 55, 89, 127 Middle, 78, 112, 115, 127, 161 tropical, 113, 189 Western, 81 See also specific countries. ), 118 aspirant, 134 Astragalus, 101, 162 Astrakhan, 39 “An Atlas on Descriptive Morphology,” 82 Aurora, cruiser, 13,15 autecology, 93 216 Komarov Botanical Institute Avrorin, N. A., 34, 116, 122, 206 awards. See honors. B babushki, 12 bacteria, 91 Baikal region, 39, 57 Bakhteev, F. Kh.(1905—_), 118, 122, 125, facing 130, 207-208 ballet, 5 Baltic Sea, 3, 4 Baranov, P. A. (1892-1962), 77-81 (biography), 82, facing 82, 110, 119, 125, 203; cited, 7, 44, 63, 64, 205, 206, 208 barleys, 147 Bashkiria, 39 Batalin, A. F. (1847-96), 41, 199 Beitrage zur Pflanzenkunde des Russischen Reiches, 58, 60, 198, 199 Beketov, A. N. (1825-1902), 50, 87 Bekriasheva-Borisova, A. G. (1903-_ ), 70, 156 Ben, G. F., 205 Berg, E. K., 130, 131 Bering, Captain Vitus [1681-1741], 31,64 Bering Sea, 30, 32, 57 Berlin Herbarium, 32, 102 Bespalova, Z. G., 209 bibliography, 60, 110, 113, 190 “Bibliography of the Siberian Flora,” 60 Bieberstein, F. A. Marschall von (1768-1826), 45,48, 56-57, N@)y/ Big Neva [River], 13, after 18, 63 Big Nevka [River], 13 BIN, abbreviation explained, 1 32 biochemistry, 71, 109, 122 biogeochemical prospecting, 93-94 biogeocoenology, 121 biography of Russian botanists, 110 biomedical science, 154 biosystematics, 107. See also taxonomy and systematics. birches, 3 Blaschke, [E. L.], 32 blockade of Leningrad. See Leningrad: World War II. Bobrov, E. G. (1902-__), 39, 70, 73, 82, 88, 120, facing 130, 137- 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152-155, 156, 201, 202; cited, 33, 44, 46, 51, 54, 59, 136, 141,159, 165, 191, 206, 207, 208, 212; quoted, 76-77, 101, 147, 148, 160, 163 bog, 12, 101 Bogor Botanic Garden and Herbarium, 112 Boissier, [E. P. (1810-85) ], 127 Bolshevik Revolution. See Revolution. Bondarzev, A. S.(1877-—__ ), 34, 70 Bongard, A. H. G. (1786-1839), 32 46,47, 57, 58 boreal forest, 3, 16, 187 Borisova, A. G. See Bekriasheva- Borisova, A. G. Borodin, I. P. (1847-1930), 50-51 (biography), 52-53, 54-55, 57, after 58, facing 59, 59, 60, 61, 88, 144, 190, 199, 200 Borszczov, I. G. [1833-78], 57, 58 bontanic vs. botanical, use of terms, 23 Botanica Experimentalis, 167 Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. See Komarov Botanical Institute. Botanical Institute in the Name of V. L. Komarov of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. See Komarov Botanical Institute. Botanical Journal. See Botanichesky Zhurnal. Index Botanical Journal of the USSR. See Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR. Botanical Museum of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 8, 9, 23- 24, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40, 43-61, 65, 67, 68, 71, 75, 86, 95, 136, 144, 145, 166, 168, 182, 188, 195-201 See also specific topics, e.g., herbaria; publications. Botanical Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. See above entry. botanical Museum of Botanical Institute. See Departments: Botanical Museum. botanical prospecting, 83, 93-94, 116, 131 See also expeditions and explora- tions. Botanical Society. See All-Union Botanical Society. Botanic Garden of the Academy of Sciences, 63-65 Botanic Garden of Botanical Institute. See Departments: Botanic Garden, Living Plants. botanic gardens, 125 inside USSR, 98, 118, 133 outside USSR, 98, 164 See also greenhouses and conserva- tories; Imperial Botanic Garden; Principal Botanic Gardens. Botanicheskie Materialy Gerbania Botanicheskogo Instituta, 167 See also Notulae Systematicae ex Herbario Instituti Botanici. Botanicheskie Materialy Otdela Sporovykh Rastenty Botaniches- kogo Instituta, 168 See also Notulae Systematicae e Sectione Cryptogamica 217 Instituti Botanici. Botanichesky Zhurnal, 51-54, 76, 77, 115, 133-134, 138-139, 169- 170, 173, 188, 192, 203 tule in Russian, 169 See also Botanichesky Zhurnal SHor Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR, 87, 169, 200, 203 See also Botanichesky Zhurnal. Botanicorum Rossicorum: Lexicon Biographico-Bibhographicarum, 110 botanists. See foreign botanists; Russian botanists. Botchantsev, V. P. [1910- OW WIA, W275 KO Brazil, 31-33, 103, 104, 111,(117, 171- 172, 174, 189, 196, 197, 202 Brilliant, V. A. (1888-1954), 70, 95, 206 British Museum, 128 Britton, N. L. [1859-1934], 164 bromeliads, 135 Brotherus, V. F. [1849-1929], 49, 59 Brozek, J., 212 bryologist, 49, 92, 113 bryology, 49, 57, 91, 92, 101, 113, 114,121,127 Bucholtz, F. V. [1872-1924], facing 59 Bulgaria, 191 ], facing Bulletin du Jardin Imperial Botanique de St-Pétersbourg, 38, 39, 169, 199, 202 “Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists,” 37 “Bulletin of Plant Disease Control,” 38,199 bureaucracy, 61, 120, 123,158 Busch, E. A. (1886-1960), 55, 57, 59,70 Busch, N. A. (1869-1941), 53, 55, 57, facing 59, 59, 70, 102 Byelorussian Republic, 77 218 C cactus collection, 102, after 194 Campanulaceae, 112, 156 Canada, botanic gardens, 98 candidate degree. See degrees. card catalogs of library, 129-130 Carex, 142, 147-148 Carpological Collection, 117, 118 See also fruit collections. cartography. See mapping. Caryophyllaceae, 74, 75, 156 Castanopsis, 172 catalogs greenhouse collections (Botanical Institute), 117 library holdings (Botanical Institute), 1 30 Catalogus Plantarum Horti Impenialis Medici Botanici Petropolitani in Insula A pothecaria, 27, 196 Catherine I (1684-1727), 7, 26, 195 Caucasus, 39, 44, 45, 54, 57,75, 113,127, 161 celebrations. See anniversary celebrations. Central Asia. See Asia. Central Naval Museum, 15 Chamisso, [A. L. (1781-1838) ], 32, 57 Chater, A. O. [1933- J, cited, 125, 128, 129, 211; quoted, 161, 162,172 Chavchavadze, [E. S.], 125, 207-208 chemical deposits, 94 Chemical Laboratory. See Laboratories. Chenopodiaceae, 162 China, 26, 79, 80, 88, 103, 108, 111, 27 E29. Chirikoff, Captain, 3 1 Chlebnikoff, [K.], 32 chloroplast, 109, 188 circumpolar arctic flora, 57-58, 137, 151-152,165 See also arctic botany. Komarov Botanical Institute civil war, 39, 50, 140 See also Revolution. classification, 27 See also evolution; phylogeny. climate. See Leningrad. coal balls, 106 collections. See expeditions and explora- tions; herbaria; plantings; and specific types of collections, e.g., fruit collections. collective planning and programing, 132-133 See also Five-Year Plans; Komarov Botanical Institute. collectors. See specific individuals. “Collectors and Collections of the Siberian Flora,” 60 Collier, [A.], 32 “Com-Academy,’’ 148 ‘‘Commussion on Mobilization of Re- sources of the Urals, Siberia, and Kazakhstan,” 90 Communist Party role, 81, 148, 157, 176-177, 181-184 communist society, 17, 124 Compositae, 27 “The Concept of Species in Plants,” 90 conferences international, 76, 80, 123, 191 national (All-Union), 76, 118, 133-134, 143-144, 148, 201 See also Flora SSSR. congresses. See conferences. Coniferae, 148 Coniferales, 106 conifers, 3 conservation, 132, 193 conservatories. See greenhouses and conservatories. councils academic, 134-135 research, 119-120 scientific, 79, 94, 137, 174 Index Crimea, 39, 45, 54, 55,127 Cronquist, A.[1919- J], 129 Croyere, [L. D.], 31 cryptogamic botany, 39, 49, 55, 57, OM, Wl, 77, 79, DIE, Oil, 102, 113-114, 120, 121, 122, 123,125, 127, 135, 148, 166, 168, 173, 192, 200 “Cryptogamic Flora of the USSR,” 92 cultivated plants, 12, 26, 27, 34-36, 39,55, 78-79, 83, 98, 114, 116,117, 154 See also plantings. curatorship, 44, 46, 47,49, 112, 113, 118, 121,123,127, 141, 156 ‘“Cyanophyta of the USSR,” 92 cycads, 72 Cyperaceae, 142, 147-148, 162 See also Carex. Cyrillic alphabet, 129 cytoecology, 110, 122 cytologist, 52, 107-108 cytology, 107-108, 121 cytophysiology, 110, 122 czarinas and czars. See tsarinas and tsars. D Danilov, A. N. (1879-1942), 70, 102 Danilova, M. F., 108, 122, 209 Darwinism, 154, 155 Decembrist Square, 15 degrees, 76, 101, 124, 126, 127, 134 Delectus Seminum, 36-37, 167, 198 Dendrological Collection, 118 See also wood collections. departmental publications, 166-168 departmental reorganization, 119-124 Departments Anatomy and Morphology, 107 Botanical Museum, 34, 69, 72, 96, 98-100, 103, 118-119, 120, 122,125, 135, after 194, 219 197; heads listed, 118 Botanic Garden, 79, 97-99, 101— 104, 116-118, 120, 122, 125, 135, 167; heads listed, 116 Cryptogamic Plants (Botanical Institute), 69, 91-92, 113-114, 121, 166, 168 Cryptogamic Plants (Botanical Museum), 49, 123 Ecology and Physiology, 95, 109, 111 See also Department of Experi- mental Botany. Economic Plants. See Department of Plant Resources. Evolutionary Morphology, 122 Experimental Botany, 69, 95 See also Department of Ecology and Physiology. Geobotany (Botanical Institute) 69, 92-95, 114-115, 120, 121- 122, 133-134, after 194 Geobotany (Botanic Garden), 35, 92 Higher Plants. See Department of Vascular Plants. Living Plants (Botanical Institute), 69, 72, 87, 91, 96, 97 (re- named) See also Department of the Botanic Garden. Living Plants (Botanic Garden), 34, 144 Lower Plants. See Department of Cryptogamic Plants. Nonvascular Plants. See Depart- ment of Cryptogamic Plants. Paleobotany, 71, 105 Plant Raw Materials and Botanical Prospecting, 96-97, 99,131 See also Department of Plant Resources. 220 Plant Resources, 81, 94, 114, DISS Mom 2/2 See also Department of Plant Raw Materials and Botanical Prospecting. Systematics and Geography of Vascular Plants. See Depart- ment of Vascular Plants. Vascular Plants, 69, 84-91, 97, 99, 105, 106, 107, 111-113, 117,121, 123, 145-146, 166, 167, 168, 173; headship, 76, 88-89, 111; name variations, 69,121 See also Laboratories. “Description of the Land of Kam- tchatka,” 64 descriptive biology, 180, 193 descriptive botany, 131, 154, 180, 188, 192-193 Diagnoses Breves Plantarum Novarum Japoniae et Mandshuriae, 48 Diagnoses Plantarum Novarum Asiaticarum, 48 dialectical materialism, 1 54 “Diatom Analysis,” 114 dicotyledons, 57 See also specific groups. dictionaries and lexicons, 82, 110, 170 director, use of word in Russian, 123 directorship Botanical Institute, 72-82, after 82, 181,190; summary, 82, 202-203 Botanical Museum, frontispiece, 46,47, 50, 54, 55, 58, after 58, 86, 88; summary, 61, 195-201 Botanic Garden, 26, 27, 28, 29, after 34, 35, 40, 64, 65, 87; summary, 40-41, 195-201 discovery voyages, 30, 31 See also expeditions and explora- tions. Komarov Botanical Institute dissertations, 76, 88, 101, 124 See also education. doctoral degree. See degrees. dogma, official, 192 See also Communist Party role. Dorofeev, P. I., 105, 107 Dostoevsky, [F. M. (1821-81) ], 18 drought resistance, 95 drug plants, 96 See also medicinal plants and products. Dubyjansky, V.A. (1877-1962), 34, 70 Duplicate Division, 128 Dzevanovsky, A. A., 39 E Eastern Asia. See Asia. ecology, 93,95, 109, 111, 122, 131,132 See also geobotany. economic botany, 34, 36, 81, 96, 122, 131, 143,149 See also Departments: Plant Resources. Economic Botany Collection, 118 economy. See Five-Year Plans; USSR: economy. ecotypes, 152, 155 Edinburgh, 113,115, 173-174, 175, 180 education graduate, 76, 90, 101, 108, 134— 135,154,172, 180 popular, 90, 91, 96, 98, 99, 117, 118, 135-136 See also degrees; Ministry of Higher Education; teaching. Egypt, 112 See also United Arab Republic. Eksperimental’naya Botantka, 167 Elenkin, A. A. (1873-1942), 49, 70, 92, facing 98, 102 embryology, 55, 78-80, 107-108, 110, 122, 133, 192 Enden, O. A., 39 Index England, 34, 115, 127 Engler’s System, 148 Eschscholtz, [J. F. G. von (1793-1831)], 32 “Essays on the Evolutionary Mor- phology of Plants,” 106 essential-oil plants, 96 Ethopia, 103 ethnobotany, 80 Eurasia, 9 See also Asia; Europe. Europe, 5, 7, 16, 54, 104 See also specific countries. European USSR, 39-40, 54, 86, 92, 100, 113,114,127, 161 evolution, 78-79, 84, 106-107, 122, ISDaN dy}, NOW See also phylogeny. Die Evolution der Angiospermen, 107 evolutionary morphology, 106-107, 122 exchanges, 60, 104, 117, 127, 128, 129, 168-169, 171-172, 189, 194,198,199 exhibits, 34, 99, 100, 118-119, 135, D7, 2Os See also Departments: Botanical Museum. expeditions and explorations, 39-40, 44, 83,96, 116, 140-141, 192-193 Africa, 79, 80, 103, 104, 112, 189 Alaska, 9, 30, 31, 32, 57 Asia, 9, 30, 48, 56, 57, 64, 79, 81, 85, 87-88, 103-104, 111 171, 189 Europe, 9, 56, 57, 64, 85, 103, 104,171,189 geobotanical, 93-95 Indonesia, 103, 112 influence of Flora SSSR, 160 South America, 32, 33, 46, 103, 104, 111,117, 171-172, 221 174, 189, 196, 197, 202 See also individual countries. experimental biology, 180 See also research. experimental botany, 50, 55,69, 91,95, 108-110, 125, 167, 188, 192 See also physiology ; research. experimental test plots, 72 See also plantings. experiment stations, 38, 122, 199 exploration. See expeditions and explorations. exsiccatae, 60, 127, 168-169, 199 EF Falk; JQ 730-74) 27) 19, Famintzin, A. S. (1835-1918), 50, S45 5153 Far East, 3:9, 54, 551, 97, 518-99; 128, 161 Fedorov, Aleksandr A. (1906-_ ), 81- 82 (biography), facing 83, 111, 112,116, 122, 194, 203; cited, 73, 88, 102, 119-120, 128, 130, 144, 168, 172, 174, 192, 205; quoted, 124, 131-132 Fedorov, Andrey A. (1909-__), 111- 3, WATS WAS. 127, facing sil 138, 156, 157, facing 163; cited, 137, 206, 209-210 Fédorov, E., facing 163 Fedtschenko, B. A. (1872-1947), 30, 34, 38, 39, facing 59, 59, 70, 76, 85, 86, after 98, 140-143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 156, 190, 201 Fedtschenko, O. A. [1845-1921], 30 ferns, 59, 72,91, 102, 113, 135, 148 fiber plants, 96 field crops, 109 “Field Geobotany,” 115 Filicales, 59 See also ferns. DRY Komarov Botanical Institute Finland, 3, 11, 16, 20,49, 191 Fischer, F. B., 28. See Fischer, F. E. L. Fischer, F. E. L. (1782-1854), 28, 29, 30, 33, facing 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 68, 188, 190, 197 Fischer von Waldeim, A. A. (1839- 1918), 35,41, 199 fish, 3 Five-Year Plans, 83, 140-141, 158, 174-175, 180-182, 192-193, 201 Fleri, L. L., 130 Flerow, A. F. [1872-1960], 34, 59 “Flora of Altai Territory and Tomsk Province,’ 75 ‘Flora of Asiatic Russia,’ 59 Flora Baicalensi-Daburica, 48 ‘Flora of the Caucasus,” 1 13 “Flora of the Cryptogamic Plants of the USSR,” 113-114, 203 Flora Europaea, 113, 162,165,174 “Flora of the European Part of the WSISRES ales “Flora of Imperial Russia,” 58-60, 139 Flora Ingrica, 47 “Flora of Kamtchatka,”’ 40, 88 “Flora of Kamtchatka and Adjacent Islands,’ 40 floral evolution and morphology, 107 Flora Malesiana, 163, 165 “Flora of Manchuria,” 88, 89 “Flora of Middle Russia,’ 86 ‘Flora of the Middle Zone of the European Part of USSR,” 86 Flora North America, 165 Flora Petropolitana, 36, 196 Flora Rossica (1784-1815), 44, 139, 195 (1842-53), 30, 31, 139-140, 198 “Flora of the Rust Fungi of the USSR,” ei Q2 “Flora of Siberia and the Far East,” 57, 58, 59, 60 “Flora of the Southeast European Part of the USSR,” 40 Flora Sporovykh Rastenty SSSR, 113- 114, 203 Flora SSSR, 82, 92, 120, 123, 136-166 Addenda, 145 Alphabetical Index, 136 apomixis and hybridization, 151, 155 authorized, 144, 201 authorship, 90, Nar iees},, 4x). 152, 155-158, 163, 201 background, 139-140 Bobrov’s contributions, 137-139, 143-144, 146, 156, 201 committees and conferences, 142— 144, 147, 148 comparison with other floras, 74, 162-166 completion, 136, 145, 147, 155— 156, 191-192, 203 content and format, 136-137, 142-145, 148-149, 156, 163, 190 criticisms, 162-163 editorship, 23, 88, 136, 137, 143- 148, 155-158 effects of merger, 59, 145-146 English translation, 162 Fedtschenko’s contributions, 86, 140-146, 201 Five-Year programs, 140, 141, 158, 201 ground rules, 146-147 groundwork, 85, 140-143 honors, 159, 191-192, 203 infrageneric and infraspecific cate- gories, 149-155 initiated, 72, 143-149, 202 Komarov’s contributions, 23, 85, 89-90, 137, 139, 144-159, 164, 201 Latin diagnoses, 145 Index national cooperation, 156 new species described, 153 nomenclature, 149, 151 political influence, 140, 148, 157, 158-160 publications resulting, 167 public interest, 141, 158-160 Schischkin’s contributions, 75, 76, 111, 137, 145-146, 156 significance, 111, 132, 137-139, 150, 160-166, 190-192 summary of major events, 201-203 systematic arrangement of families, 148 taxonomic philosophy, 149-155 utles in English, Latin, and Russian, | 36 Vassilczenko’s contributions, 156-157 vernacular names, 159 war difficulties, 101, 157, 159 Flora et Systematica Plantae Vascu- lares, 166, 167 Flora Systematika Vysshikh Rastenty, 167 Flora Taurico-Caucasica, 45, 48 Flora Unionis Rerumpublicarum Socialisticarum Sovieticarum, 136 See also Flora SSSR. Flora URSS, 136, 144, 150, 154, 156,191. See also Flora SSSR. ‘Flora of the USSR,” 23, 190, 201 See also Flora SSSR. “Flora of Western Siberia,” 74 floristics, 47, 60, 74, 79, 93 future in USSR, 85, 138-139, 160-162, 164-166, 192-193 history of floras, 107, 133 honored, 159 importance, 36, 55, 56, 71, 84, 85, 111, 113, 140, 193 223 influence of Flora SSSR, 85, 138— 139, 160-162, 164-166 new surges, 30, 140, 192-193 See also expeditions and explora- tions; Flora SSSR; taxonomy and systematics. flowering plants, 59, 106, 107 See also specific groups. Fomin, A. V. (1869-1935), 52, facing 59, 59, 146 forage crops, 114 foreign botanists, 26, 27, 31, 82, 90, 111,151, 165, 170-171, 189, 191, 194 foreign scholars, 5, 8, 26 foreign travel, 171-175, 189 forestry, 114, 120 fossils, 72, 99, 105-106, 149 “Foundations of Evolutionary Mor- phology of the Angiosperms,”’ 107 France, 5, 76, 115 fruit collections, 33, 72, 106, 117, 118, 171 fungi, 49,77, 91-92, 114, 127 G Ganeshin, S. S., 55, 57 “Garden of Her Imperial Majesty Catherine I,” 7, 26, 195. See also Imperial Botanic Garden. gardens. See botanic gardens. genetics, 92, 154-155 Genkel, A. G., facing 59 Geobotanica, 167 “Geobotanical Investigations on Cherno- zems,’ 47, 198 ‘“Geobotanical Map of Middle Asia,” 115 “Geobotanical Map of the USSR,” 114 Geobotanika, 167 224 Komarov Botanical Institute geobotanist, 72, 92, 94-95, 100, 115, facing 98, 113,154 133, 143, 148, 170, 174, 180, Grubov, V.I.[1917— ], 113, 127 181, 201 Guinea (French), 80, 103 geobotany, 35, 36, 39, 47, 60, 69, 71, Giildenstadrt, J. A., 44 92-95, 110, 114-115,120,121— Gulf of Finland, 3, 20 122,167, 192 Gulf Stream, 98 seminars and conferences, 133-134, gum plants, 96 143-144, 148, 201 Gutenberg typography, 130 use of term, 93 geographic races, 90, 1 50-155 geography. See phytogeography. H geology, 93 Georgian State Museum, 75 Harvard University, 128 Germany, 5, 31, 32, 64, 102, 103,162, Helsinki, 11, 16 19] Helsinki University, 49 Ghana, 103 herbals, 130 Gmelin, J. G. (1709-55), 44, 64 herbaria Gmelin, S. G. [1743-74], 44 Botanical Institute, 9, 29, 69, 71, goals. See national goals. 75,79, 84-86, facing 99, 102, Gobi, Kh. J. [1847-1920], facing 59 104, 111-113, 121, 125, 127— Golovach, A. G., 116, 122, 211 128, 136, 146, 156, 161, 172, Goncharov, N. F. [1900-42], 101, 189 102, 157 Botanical Museum, 30-32, 43-46, Gontscharov, N. F. See Goncharov, N. F. 48-49, 54-58, 60, 68, 71, 85, Gorenky botanic garden, 28-29, 45, 145,197, 198 46,196,197 Botanic Garden, 29-34, 38-39, 47, Gorodkov, B. N. (1890-1953), 55, 57, 49,69, 71, 85-86, 97, 197 70, 95 founding, 29, 45-46, 56, 197 Gorschkova, S. G.[1889- J, 156 future development, 128, 193 graduate training. See education; teaching. geographic sections, 39, 54-55, Gramineae (grasses), 45, 47, 56-57, 69, facing 99, 112, 113, 127— 91, 147, 149, 156, 157, 162 128 Great National War, 101 Gorenky botanic garden, 45, 197 See also wars: World War II. important collections, 29-33, Green, P.S.[1920- ], 208 39, 43-46, 48, 56-58, 111- Greenberg, D. S., 177 113,197 greenhouses and conservatories, 33-35, influence of Flora SSSR, 161 71-72, 76, 79, 91,97, 101-104, national, 30, 71, 127, 193 116-118, 135, after 194, 199 nonvascular (cryptogamic), 49, See also botanic gardens; plantings. DM MAS, 127 Greenland, 16 significance, 84-85, 161, 193 Grinevetskiy, B. B., facing 59 size, 9, 30, 34, 56, 71, 112, 127- Grossheim, A. A. (1888-1948), 128, 141,172,189 Index types, 31,128 vascular, 54-55, 69, 71, 79, 112, IN, WLS) N27 NIG See also exchanges and specific collectors. Herbarium-Library Building, facing 66, 67, 68-69, facing 99, 102, 127, 200 Herder, F. E. [Herder, F. G. von (1828-96) ], 130-131 Hermitage. See State Hermitage. ‘“Heterogenesis and Evolution,” 49 Heywood, [V. H.(1927— )], 165, 191, 207 Hieracium, 151,156 history of botany, 79, 90, 107, 110, 133 See also Preface. “The History of Plant Embryology,” 79 Hitler, [A. (1889-1945)], 17, 19, 100, 190 Hoffmann, G. F. (1760-1826), 45, 197 Hollerbach, M. M. (1907-_ ), 114, 121, after 130 honors, 81, 114, 149, 159, 191-192, 203 Hordeae, 147 horticulture. See cultivated plants. horticulturist, 102, 159 Hotel Astoria, 15, 16, facing 19, 19 Hotel Russia, 15, 16 Howard, R. A. [1917- Hultén, Eric [1894- 206 humanist, 110 ], 208 tO SSA Hungary, 191 hybridization, 151, 155 | ideological influence. See political influence. Iljin, M. M. (1889- 96, 143, 146 3), HO, Bil. (egy Iljinskaya, I. A., 106, 209 Iljinsky, A. P. (1888-1945), 69, 70, 94, 97, facing 98, 116 Ilyin, M. M. See Ijin, M. M. Imperial Academy of Sciences, 27, 43- 47, 50, 52, 55-56, 58, 61, 139, 188,195 Botanical Museum, 43-61 Botanic Garden, 63-65 See also academicians; Academy of Sciences of the USSR; publications. Imperial Botanic Garden, 8-9, 23, 25- 41,43, 47-48, 65, 68, 72, 87- 89 ANS 839 herbarium, 29-30, 47, 68, 97 library, 29, 30, 68, 71, 128 museum, 34, 98-99, 197 name changes, 23, 40, 97 relationship to Botanical Museum, 46-49, 55-56, 59 summary of events, 195—201 See also Departments: Botanic Garden, Living Plants; director- ship; Principal Botanic Garden (Leningrad); publications. Imperial City, 8 Imperial Court, 4, 8, 18, 26, 195 Imperial Russia, 4, 56, 58-59, 139, 171, 176, 187 See also USSR and specific topics. “In Tropical Africa,” 80 Index Herbariorum, 125 Index Seminum. See Delectus Seminum. India, 103 Indonesia, 103, 111-112 indoor plantings. See plantings. industry, 34, 83, 132 infrageneric and infraspecific categories, 149-155 infraspecific variation, 192 insecticidal plants, 96 Institute of Cryptogamic Plants, 49 intelligentsia, 126 226 Komarov Botanical Institute International Association for Plant Taxonomy, 76 International Biological Program (IBP), 174-175, 192-193 International Botanical Congresses 7th (Stockholm), 80, 173 8th (Paris), 76, 80, 115, 173 9th (Montreal), 115, 173 10th (Edinburgh), 113,115, 132, 173, 174, 176, 180 international committees, 76, 113, 172- 173 International Directory of Botanical Gardens, 125 Intourist, 9,18 Introductio Plantarum et Viridaria, 167 “Introduction to the Botanical Literature of the USSR: A Handbook for Geobotanists,” 110 “Introduction to the Floras of Mongolia and China,” 88 Introduction Nursery of Medicinal and Commercial Plants, 122 Introduktsia Rastenty Zelenoe Stroitel’stvo, 167 lordanov, D., 191 Tris, 117 Isajevs Veue lo 1 Isatchenko, B. L. (1871-1948), facing 35, 35, 41, facing 59, 70, 87, 200 Israel Program for Scientific Transla- tions, 162 Italy, 80 Ivan the Terrible [Ivan IV (1530-84) ], 4 Ivanina, L. I., 136 Ivanov, L. A., 53 Izvestia, 169. See also Bulletin du Jardin Imperial Botanique. Japan, 48 Jeanneret, M., 212 Journal Botanique de! URSS, 167— 170, 200, 203 See also Botanichesky Zhurnal SSSR. Journals. See periodicals and serials. Juxip, [A. J.J, 151, 156 Juzepezuk, S. V. (1893-1959), 70, 91, after 98, 104, 111, 143- 144, 146, 154, 156,171, 172, 174, 202 K Kamtchatka, 16, 31, 39, 40, 64, 88, 7 Karpenko, A. S., 211, 212 Karpinsky, A. P. (1847-1 936), 180- 181 Karpinsky Geological Museum, 15 Kastalsky, [G.], 32, 57 Kazakhstan, 39, 90, 114 Kazan, 97, 100 Keller, B. A. (1874-1945), facing 59, 72-73 (biography), 82, facing 82, 143, 144, 181, 183, 202 Kershner, D. M., 205 Kew (England), 34, 127 Khmelevskiy, V. F., facing 59 Khrushchev, [N. S. (1894-__)], 114 Kiev Society of Naturalists, 52 Kirov Academy of Military Medicine, 28 Kirov Ballet, 5 Kirpicznikov, M. E. [1913- Ik INO, 111,128,170 Kling, I: G, 130, 131 Klopotov, B. N. (1882-1942), 70, 96, 102 Index 227 Knorring-Neustrueva, O. E., 70 organizational structure, 69-71, Kodiak, 31 119-124, 126-127, 184 Kola Peninsula, 39, 57, 98 political and ideological forces, Komarov, V. L. (1869-1945), frontis- 175-184 piece, facing 59, 76, 111, postwar activities in traditional facing 162, 208, 212 departments, 111-119 biography, 86-91 relationship to Academy, 132-135, collections, 30, 39-40 174-175, 180-183 positions and honors, 23, 34, 50, reorganization, 80, 106, 119— 51, 53,55, 61, 67-68, 69-70, 124, 203 116, 144, 182-183, 188, 190, research councils, 119-120 201, 202 Scientific Council, 137 rolein Flora SSSR. See Flora summary of events, 202-203 SSSR. traditional strengths, 131 taxonomic influence, 23, 89-90, wartime activities of staff, 75, 90, 139, 146, 149-155 97, 100-102 Komarov Botanical Institute, 15, 25, See also Departments; director- 29, 37, 59, 61, 67-194 ship; education; herbaria; Academic Council, 134-135 Laboratories; library; merger; anniversary (250th) celebrated, 52, national goals; publications; 68, 77, 120, 190-192, 203 research, staff; and other topics. buildings and grounds, after 66, Komarovian concepts and method. See 68-69, 71-72, 88, facing 99, Komaroy, V. L. 102, 127, after 194, 200, 203 Komarovian Era, 154 collective planning, 83—84, 1 32— Komarov Readings, 23 BBM 16421166, 174-175, 180= Konovalov, I. N.[1906-— J, 109, 122, 182, 190-193 206 eminence, 69—70, 77, 187-194 Korczagin, A. A., 115, 121 Flora SSSR, role and influence, Korshinsky, S. I. (1861-1900), 47, 48, 160, 190-192 49,57, 58, after 58, 59-60, 61, foreign visitors, 172, 194 86, 88, 139-140, 199 founding, 8-9, 23-24, 67-69,201 Kostermans, A.[1907- J, 112 international role, 76, 80, 84-85, Kostychev, S. P. [1877-1931], 53, Ni, 135 1S, 1AM, 1A, NO facing 59 175, 176, 180, 192-193 Kotschubey, V. P., 28 journal published, 169 Kotzebue, Captain [Otto von (1787- national role, 51-52, 93-97, 131- 1846)], 32 136, 174-175, 187-194 Kozhina, I. S., 122 new postwar developments, 105- Kozo-Poljansky, B. M. [1890-1957], 110 59,154 official name, 23, 67-68, 188, 202 Krasheninnikov, I. M. (1884-1947), Order of the Red Banner of Labor 70 awarded, 191-192, 203 Krasheninnikov, S. P. (1711-55), 64 228 Komarov Botanical Institute Kreczetovicz, V. I. (1901-42), 70, 102, 142, 143, 144, 147-148 Krishtofovich, A. N. (1885-1953), 71, facing 98, 105, 118, 146, 156, 190, 206 Krusenstern, Captain [Adam I. (1770- 1846)], 31 Krylov, P. N. [1850-1931], 55, 57, 74, 75 Kikenthal, [G. (1864-1956) ], 147 Kunstkammer, 43, 46, 56, 65, 187- 188, 195, 197 Kuprevicz, V-F.(1897— ), 77 (biography), facing 82, 203 Kuprianova, L. A., 91 Kursanov, A. L., 80, 191 Kusmischeff, [P.], 32 Kuznetsov, N. I. (1864-1932), 69, 70, 92, facing 98 Kyber, 32 L Laboratories, 121-123 Algology, 121 Anatomy and Morphology, 75, 101, 107, 122 Botanical Cartography, 121 Chemistry of Plant Materials, 64, 96,99, 116, 122 Cytoecology and Cytophysiology, | 110, 122 Cytology, 107-108, 121 Embryology, 122 Flora, 120 Forest, 120 General and Experimental Geobotany, 121 Lichenology and Bryology, 121 Lower Plant Biochemistry, 71, 122 Microelements, 109, 122 Morphology and Anatomy (Moscow), 79 Mycology, 121 Paleobotany, 75, 105-106, 121, 167 Photosynthesis, 109, 122 Plant Growth and Development, 122 Plant Resources, 81, 122 Seed, 117 Soil Ecology, 122 Systematics and Geography of Cryptogamic Plants, 120 Systematics and Geography of Vascular Plants, 112-113, 121,123,125 Technological, 116, 122 Vegetation of Arid Regions, 121 Vegetation of the Forest Zone, 121 Vegetation of the Northern Re- gions, 121 See also Departments. Lake Baikal, 39, 57 land reclamation, 93, 114 landscape architecture, 116 Langsdorff, G. H. (1774-1852), 31, 32, 33,46, 196 Langsdorff, G. I., 31. See Langsdorff, G. H. Lanjouw, J.[1902— ], 211 Latin, 37, 44, 60, 82, 129, 139, 145, 159, 167, 170 Latvia, 36 Lavrenko, E.M.(1900-_ ), 51, 92, 94, 100, 114, 115, 121, after 130; cited, 50, 170, 206 Lay, [G. T.], 32 leaf epidermis, 106 Lebedev, D. V., 110, 130; cited, 37, 59, 63, 72,119, 120, 131, 144, 205, 206; quoted, 35, 84, 93, 96, 100, 101, 128 Ledebour, K. F. (1785-1851), 30, 31, 139, 198 legal consultation, 136 Index Leguminosae, 81, 162 Lenin [Vladimir I. Ulyanov (1870- 1924)], 4, 13, 78, 81 Leningrad, after 18 architecture, 13, 16 botanical collections, 9, 29, 31, 44, 48,57, 161, 189 city life and culture, 5, 8, 11-20 climate, 3,4, 12, 16, 98, 104, 117-118 government, 5, 18,174, 191 International Airport, 15, 16 maps, 6-7, 14-15 Moscow Station [R. R.], 15 name changes, 4 Philharmonic Hall, 191 scientific institutions, 8—9, 23, 25, 29, 51-54, 67-68, 73, 75,79, 85, 88, 97, 98, 122, 125, 140- 141,171, 187-190, 191, 195— 203 World War II, 17, 19, 68, 97, 100-103, 108, 183, 190-191, 202 See also Petrograd; Revolution; and St. Petersburg. Leningrad State University, 12, 15, after 18, 71, 76, 90, 115, 134, 137,139 Leningrad Zoological Museum, 15 Lenin Prize, 191, 203 Leonova, T. G., 136 Lepechin, I. I. (1740-1802), 64-65 Leskov, A. I. [1902-42], 102 Lesser Sunda Islands, 112 lexicons. See dictionaries and lexicons. libraries Academy of Sciences (Leningrad), 68 Botanical Institute, 37, facing 67, 68-69, 85, 128-131, 189-190 Botanical Museum, 68 Botanic Garden, 28, 29, 30, 34, 229 68, 71, 128, 197 foreign compared, 128-129 Gorenky botanic garden, 28-29, 197 Principal Botanic Garden (Moscow), 68 See also Herbarium-Library Building. librarians, 130-131 library catalogs, 129-130 Library of Congress (USA), 128 lichenologist, 49, 92, 120 lichenology, 49, 91; 121, 123, 127, 192 Linchevsky, I. A. [1908— ], 111, 156, L675 22 Linnaeus, [C. (1707-78) ], 27, 47, 130 Livoselnnis, Ss Io (CIXOS= »)), SO, WO 128, 205, 208 Hipsky,) Ve SO 31937 20,545 319, SI literature. See periodicals and serials; publications. Little Neva [River], 13, 63 Little Nevka [River], 13 Litvinow, D. I. (1854-1929), 49, 54, 55,97, 58-59, 60, 86, 168, 190 Litvinow, M. A., 121 living plant collections. See plantings. Lodkina, M. M., 205 Lomonosov, Mikhail V. (1711-65), 64 lower plants. See cryptogamic botany. Lubimenko, V. N. (1873-1937), facing 59, 69, 70, 95, facing 98 Luks, J. A., 207 Luschnat, B., 33, 197 Lysenko, [T. D. (1898- Lysenkoism, 192 )}, 154 M Maevsky, P. F., 86 Maleev, V. P. (1894-1941), 70, 102 230 Komarov Botanical Institute Manchuria, 88, 89 “Manual of the Leafy Mosses of the Arctic of the USSR,” 114 mapping, 36, 94-95, 100, 114-115, 121, 131, 144, 190, 192 “Map of the Regions of the Flora of the USSR,” 144 “Map of the Vegetation of the USSR,” 94 Marschall von Bieberstein, F. A. See Bieberstein, F. A. Mar- schall von. Marxism, 154 Marxist-Leninist literature, 130 Maryinsky Ballet, 5 master’s degree. See degrees. Materiae Rudes Plantarum, 167 “Materials of the Flora of Turkish Armenia,’ 75 Matsenko, A. E., 136 Maximowicz, C. J. (1827-91), 30, 47- 48, after 58, 61, 190, 198 Maximowicz, K. I., 47. See Maxi- mowicz, C. J. medals. See honors. medical consultation, 136 Medical Department of Ministry of Home Affairs, 29, 197 Medical Office, 25, 195 Medicinal Garden, 26, 27, 65, 195, 196 medicinal plants and products, 25-26, 88, 96, 101, 122, 188 medicine, 26, 124 Medico-Botanic Garden, 27, 28, 196 Meditzinsky Sad (Ogorod), 26, 64, 195 Medvedev, J. S., 53 Meinshausen, K. F. (1819-99), 46, 49 merger of Botanical Museum and Botanic Garden, 23, 40, 51, SII Ol67— 6957 Lao: 85-86, 88, 95, 97, 131, 145- 146, 181-182, 188-189, 201-202 Mertens, [C. H. (1796-1830)], 32, 46, Sy Des Metachlamydeae, 162 Meyer, C. A. (1795-1855), 30, 36, 40, 41, 47, 58, 61, 190, 198 Meyer, F.G.[1917- ], 48 Mezhdunarodnaya Biologicheskaya Programma (MBP), 174 See also International Biological Program. microbiologist, 27 microbiology, 92 microelements, 95, 109, 122 microorganisms, 109, 122 Middle Asia. See Asia. Middle Russia, 86 Mikoyan, Anastas [1895— ], 191 Mimosaceae, 8 1 mineral deposits, 94 mineral nutrition, 95, 109, 122 Ministry of the Court, 29, 197 Ministry of Home Affairs, 28, 197 Ministry of Higher Education, 126, 132,176 Ministry of State Properties, 29, 198 Mishchenko, P. I., facing 59 Moldavia, 78 molecular biology, 180 Mongolia, 26, 88, 103, 127 monocotyledons, 57, 91 See also specific groups. Montana, 11 Monteverde, N. A. (1856-1929), after 98,118 Monteverde, N. N. (1885-1952), 70 Montreal, 115 Morbi Plantarum, 38, 199 Mordak, E., facing 163 Morfologia 1 Anatomia Rastenty, 167 morphogenesis, 108 Morphologia et Anatomia Plantarum, 167 ‘Morphological Evolution of the Index 231 Angiosperms,”” 106 morphologist, 81, 108, 170 morphology, 75, 78-79, 81-82, 91, 106-108, 112, 122, 133,152, 167, 192 ‘Morphology of the Pollen of Mono- cotyledonous Plants,” 9 1 Moscow, 4, 8, 11, 16, 28, 29, 45, 46, 53, 68, 73, 78-79, 88, 97, 100, 121, 183, 192, 196, 197, 202 Moscow University, 78 mosses. See bryology. Motes, K., 191 museum. See Botanical Museum, De- partments: Botanical Museum. mycologist, 49, 77 mycology, 121, 192 N Nadson, G. A. (1867-1942), 53, facing 59, 70, 130 Nataljin, N. B., 210 national goals, 83-84, 123-124, 141, 192-193 national herbarium of USSR. See herbaria. national symposia, 96 natural resources, 36, 90, 94, 99, 132 See also plant resources. naturalists, 30-31, 44, 52-53, 139 Naumov, N. A, facing 59 Navashin, M. S.(1896-_ ), 108, 121, after 130 Navashin, S. G. (1857-1930), 52, 53, 108 Navashin’s Solution, 108 Nees [Nees von Esenbeck, C. G. (1776- 1858)], 57 Nekrassova, V. L. (1881-—_ ), 59, 70, 206 Neva River, 3-4, 11-13, 18, after 18, 20, 187 Nevka River, 13, 195 Nevsky, S. A. [1908-38], 91, 147 New York Botanical Garden, 164 Ngoc-Toan, Luong, 172 Nikitin, A. A., 70 Nikolayeva, T. L.(1902-_ ), 70 nomenclature, 38, 47, 149,151,159 Russian binomials, 159 nonvascular plants. See cryptogamic botany. North America, 31, 175, 189 See also under American; USA; and specific place names. North American Flora, 162-163, 164 North Viet-Nam, 103-104, 172 Norway, 12 Notulae Systematicae ex Herbario Instituti Botanici, 38-39, 167— 168, 200, 203 utle in Russian, 167 Notulae Systematicae e Sectione Cryptogamica Instituti Botanici, 39, 168, 200, 203 Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium, 168, 203 Novosti Sistematiki Vysshikb Rastenty, 168 nurseries. See plantings. O Observations sur la Végeétation de I’ Ile de Sitcha, 32 October Revolution. See Revolution. ogorod, meaning of, 26 Ohwi, J. [1905-1], 48 oil-seed plants, 96 Ol, I. A. (1884-1943), 70, 102, 130 Old Admiralty, 15, facing 19 Opera Selecta (Komarov), 90 Orchidaceae (orchids), 78, 135 Order of Lenin, 81 D2 Order of the Red Banner of Labor, 191-192, 203 Order of the Red Star, 81 origin of species, +9 “Origins of Angiospermous Plants,” 106 ornamental plants. See cultivated plants. Orobanche gigantea, after 130 Ortus Sanitatus, 130 Oslo, 12 Otradnoye, 122 outdoor plantings. See plantings. P Palace Square, 15, facing 18 Paleobotanica, 167 Paleobotanical Laboratory. See Laboratories: Paleobotany. Paleobotantka, 167 paleobotanist, 71, 105-107 paleobotany, 71, 72, 75, 93, 99, 105— 107, 121, 149, 167, 173 Palibin, I. V. (1872-1949), 34, 69, 70, after 98, 105,118 Palladin, V. I. [1859-1922], 53 Pallas, P. S. (1741-1811), 44, 139, 190, 195 Palm Conservatory, 71, 102, facing 195, IO) palms, 33, 71-72, 102, 135, facing 195, 199 palynologist, 91 palynology, 71, 91 Pamir Biological Station, 78, 109 Paris, 76, 115 park. See arboretum and park. pathology, 38, 39, 199 patriotism, 73, 81 Pavlov, [I. P. (1849-1936) ], 154 Pavlovsk, 15, facing 163 Peking, 80 People’s Commissariat of Agriculture Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Republic of the USSR (RSFSR), 35, 40, 200 People’s Commissariat of Education of the Russian Federated Republic (RSFSR), 54 periodicals and serials All-Union (Russian) Botanical Society, 50-54, 169-170, 200 Botanical Institute, 76, 166-170, 202-203 Botanical Museum, 58, 59-60, 166, 168-169, 198-199 Botanic Garden, 36-39, 58, 76, 166, 169, 198-200. See also specific titles. Peter the Great (Peter I, 1672-1725), 3-5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 25=26, 29, 40, 43, 68, 170, 187-188, 194, 195, 200 Peter and Paul Fortress, 15, 18, after 18 Peters, [C.], 32 Petersburg. See Leningrad; Petrograd; St. Petersburg. Petersburg Island, 7 Petersburg University, 50 Peter’s Palace, 20 Petrodvorets, facing 18, 20 Petrograd, 4; 35,40) S1h25 Semler 200, 201 See also Leningrad; St. Petersburg. Petrograd Society of Naturalists, 52—5 3 Petrov, Jason V., 28, 144, 196 Pharmaceutical Garden, 8, 9, 13, 25, 187-188, 195 Pharmaceutical Island, 7, 13,15, 25, 195 pharmacology, 109 pharmacy, 26 Philosophia Botanica, 28 photography, aerial, 101 photoperiodism, 95 photosysthesis, 95, 109, 122 phycologist, 49, 114 Index 233 phycology, 192 See also algae; algology. phylogeny, 96, 106, 150 See also evolution. “Physiological Investigations of the Respiration of Leafy Shoots,” 50 physiologist, 109, 132, 180 physiology, 39, 50, 55, 69,77, 92, 95, 108-110, 111, 117-118, 122, 132,188 phytocoenology, 93 phytogeography, 36, 38, 48, 55, 69, 85, 89, 93,97, 112-113, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 131, 142, 145— 146, 152-153, 192 See also Departments: Geo- botany, Vascular Plants ; geobotany. phytopathologist, 77 phytosociology, 93, 131, 192 See also geobotany. pigment chemistry, 109 Pigulevsky, G. V., 116 Pinaceae, 162 planning. See Five-Year Plans; USSR: economy. plant acclimatization, 72, 78, 84, 97- 98,116 Plantae Cryptogamae, 166 plant chemistry, 64, 96, 109, 116, 122 plant communities, 192 See also geobotany ; phytosociology. plant exploration. See expeditions and explorations. plant geography. See phytogeography. plant indicators, 93 plantings, 25, 34, facing 66, 71-72, 91,97-98, 102-104, 117, 122, 135, after 194. See also greenhouses and conserva- tories. plant introduction, 39, 72, 84, 96, 97- 98, 116-117, 122, 133, 167 Plant Kingdom, 84, 99, 106 See also specific groups. “Plant Raw Materials of the USSR,” 116 plant resources, 36, 81, 83, 85, 93-96, 99, 100, 115-116, 118-119, 122, 131-132, 167 plants. See specific kind or region, e.g., fiber plants; Japan. “Plants of Central Asia,” 113 plant sociology. See phytosociology. poet-scientist, 64 Pojarkova, A. I. [1897- ], 70 Poland, 100 Polar-Alpine Botanic Garden, 98 political influence, 130, 140, 148, 157, 158-160, 175-184, 192, 194 pollen. See palynology. Polunin, N.[1909- J, 151 Polyansky, V. I. (1907-59), 98, 118, 206 polyploidy, 78 Pomological Garden, 29 Popye not Poplavskaya, G. I., 39 Popov, M. G. [1893-1955], 59, 154 populations, 154-155 Postels, [A. P. (1801—71)], 32 Pribilof Islands, 32 Primitiae Florae Amurensis, +8 Primitiae Florae Petropolitanae, 26, 195 Principal Botanic Garden (Leningrad), DZUB MA ONOD GOs Si olay 2, OF, WIS) herbaria, 71, 104, 140-145 merger, 51, 67-68, 75, 181-182, 188-189 name changes, 23, 40, 97 placed under Academy, 182 summary of events, 195—201 See also Departments: Botanic Garden, Living Plants; Imperial 234 Komarov Botanical Institute Botanic Garden. Principal Botanic Garden (Moscow), OSS S— 197s 202 Pritzel’s Thesaurus, 130-131 prizes. See honors. “Professor,”’ use of title, 126 programs. See Komarov Botanical Institute: collective planning. Proshkina-Lavrenko, A. I., 114 prospecting. See botanical prospecting. Prozorovsky, A. V. [1908-42], 102 Pryanishnikov, D. N. [1865-1948] facing 59 Psilophytales, 106 Pteridophyta, 148 See also ferns. public service, 117, 135-136 publications Academy of Sciences, 32, 58, 169-170, 177, 199, 202-203 Botanical Institute, 59, 75-76, 77, 78-79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 91, 92,94-95, 101, 104, 106-107, 108, 110, 113-117, 190, 200 Botanical Museum, 32, 45, 47— 48, 50, 57-60, 166, 198-199, 200 Botanic Garden, 26-28, 36-40, 48-49, 59, 87-88, 166-167, 169, 200 general focus, 132 popular guide books, 117 textbooks and handbooks, 106- 108, 110, 113-117, 132,190 wartime, 101 See also Flora SSSR; periodicals and serials; translations ; and specific tutles. purges, 73, 183, 190 Pushkin, 15, facing 163 Pushkin Square, after 18 R Rassadina, K. A. (1903- Rastitel’noe Syr’e, 167 Razumovsky, Count, 28, 29, 45, 46, 196, 197 See also Gorenky botanic garden. RBO, 50. See All-Union Botanical Society. Red Army, 100 “Red” China, 80 See also China. Regel, E. A. (1815-92), 29, facing 35, 41,190, 198, 199 Regel, R. E. [1867-1920], facing 59 Reinhardt, L. V., 53 Republics. See USSR. research ),49, 55, 70 applied vs. theoretical, 70, 79, 83, 93-95, 96, 101, 105, 106-109, 114, 116, 123, 131-132, Ne AS) (by) committee, 164-165 experimental. See experimental botany. goals,/83, 93 -95),.910) l/l NO 2198 international cooperation. See Komarov Botanical Institute: international role. new lines, 70-71, 83, 104-105, 108, 111, 192-193 philosophy, 175-184 postwar tempo, 104-105 programed, 83, 165, 190. See also Komarov Botanical Institute: collective planning. See also Departments; Laboratories. research assistants, 126, 127 resin plants, 96 Revolution, 4, 13, 18, 33, 34-36, 37, Index 39, 50), 395 OY, Di, OM, WAU, Is il 140, 171-172, 176, 180-183 Richter, A. A., 53, facing 59 Riedel, L. (1790-1861), 33, 46, 196, DY Riga, 36 Rio de Janeiro, 31, 33, 197 Rodin, L. E., 121, 174 Rosaceae, 162 Roshevitz, R. U. (1882-1949), 34, 59, 70, 91, after 98, 144, 156 Rostovtsev, S. I. [?-1916], facing 59 Rothrock, [J. T. (1839-1922)], 31 Royal Botanic Gardens (England), 34. 127 Rudolph, I. J. (1754-1809), 65 Rumania, 191 Ruprecht, F. J. (1814-70), 46, 47, 57, 58, after 58, 61, 190, 198 Russia, 181 See also Imperial Russia; USSR; and specific topics. Russian America, 57 See also Alaska. Russian Botanical Society (RBO)., See All-Union Botanical Society. Russian botanists first native, 64 foremost, 50-51, 74, 86-91, 106, 108, 154, 183 public recognition, 159 See also USSR: leading botanists. Russian Federated Republic (RSFSR), 23, 35,40, 200 Russian-Latin lexicon, 170 S Saakov, S.G., 122 sad, meaning of, 26 St. Isaac’s Cathedral, 15, 17-18, after 18 BSS St. Paul (ship), 31 St. Peter (ship), 31 St.-Petersbourg, 59, 199 See also St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg, after 18 botanical collections, 26, 30-33, 43,189 location and history, 30, 12, 1G, 17-18 map, 6-7 name changes, 4, 187, 200, 201 science and culture, 25, 26, 29, 36, 43-44, 46,47, 48, 56, S35 OS) 5 P43 NAS NS, 7, 187-190, 197, 198 See also Leningrad; Petrograd. Samylina, V. A., 209 Sanktpeterburgskaya Flora, 36, 196 Savicz, N. M., 39 Savicz, V. P.(1885-—__), 49, 69, 70, 92, 120, after 130, 206 Savicz-Lubitskaya, L. I. (1886— 5 HO, As Wits, Wes Scandinavia, botanic gardens, 98 ), 49, See also specific countries or places. Schedae ad Herbarium Florae Rossicae, 60 See also next entry. Schedae ad Herbarium Florae URSS, 168-169 Schischkin, B. K. (1886-1963), 55, 70, 73-77 (biography), 82, facing 82, 85-86, 88-89, 100, 104, 111, 112,113,117, 137, 145- 146, 156, 169, 172, 174, 183, 190, 202; cited, 54, 56, 68, 71, 91,127, 150, 206, 208 ; quoted, 151 Schrenk, [A. G. (1816-76) ], 30 science. See specific topics. scientific coworkers, 179 Scientific-Methodic Council, 119-120 236 scientific workers, 126, 179 scientists American vs. Russian, 179-180, 194 discipline-oriented, 177-179 society oriented, 178-179 Scotland. See Edinburgh. Second Kamtchatka Expedition, 31, 64 sedges, 142, 147-148 seedlings, 91 seed lists, 36-37, 167, 198 seeds, 33, 72, 79, 102, 104, 117,118, 171,198 seed-testing, 38, 39, 199 Semina Delecta. See Delectus Seminum. seniority, 61 serials. See periodicals and serials. Shaparenko, K. K., 102 Shennikov, A. P., 206 Sheremetevaya, E. P., 53 Shetler, S. G., facing 163, 205, 212 Shilkina, I. A., 209 Shinners, L.H.[1918-— J], 212 Shipchinsky, N. V. (1886-1955), 39, 70,97, 116,118 shipsill3;il 31 Shivrina, A. N., 122 Shkolnik, M. J. (1907- facing 131 “Short Outline of the History of the Imperial Garden of St. Peters- bung. 317; Siberia, 26-27, 31, 44,49, 54-55, 57, 60, 64, 74-75, 90, 114, 128, 154, 161 Siegesbeck, J. G. (1686-1755), 26, 27, 36, 64, 195 Sigesbeckia, 27 Simonson, E., 212 Sinelnikov, E. V., 207 Sitka, 30, 31, 32, 46, 58 “Sketch of the Flora of Alaska,”’ 31 slide collections, 106 5 MOD, 272, Komarov Botanical Institute Smelowsky, T. A. (1769-1815), 28, 65, 190, 196 Smirnov, V. I., 39 Smirnova, Z.N.[1898-— ],114 Smithsonian Institution, 112, 128, 162, 173-174, 192 Smoljaninova, L. A., 45 Smolny, 13,15, facing 19 Snigirevskaya, N.S.[1932- ], 106, 209 Sobolewsky, G. F. (1741-1807), 27, 28, 36, 196 Sochava, V. B., 114, 206 socialism, 158, 178-181, 192-193 societies. See All-Union Botanical Society; Kiev Society of Natur- alists; Petrograd Society of Naturalists; Ukrainian Botanical Society. sociology of science, 191 soil ecology, 122 soiskatel, 134 Sokolov, S. J., 70, 97, 101, 116; cited, 33, 72,91, 206, 207 Sokolov, V. S., 100-101, 122 Solodovnikova, V. S., 207 Soo, R.[1903— J, 191 South America, 32, 33,46, 103, 104, 111,117, 171-172, 174, 189, 196, 197, 202 See also individual contries. Sovetskaya Botanika, 76, 169, 202, 203 See also Bulletin du Jardin Im- perial Botanique. Soviet, meaning of, 181 Soviet Academy of Sciences. See Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Soviet Encyclopedia, 148 Soviet period, 18, 116, 132, 175, 176, 179 See also USSR. Soviet Union. See USSR. Index speciation, 113 species concept, 77, 90, 149-155 Spectes Plantarum, 9, 27 sphagnum, 92, 101, 113 See also bryology. “Sphagnum Mosses of the European Part of the USSR,” 92 Spisok Rasteniy Gerbaria Flory SSSR, 168 spores, 102 See also cryptogamic botany. Sporovye Rastenta, 167 staff, frontispiece, after 34, 58, 82, 98, 130 Botanical Institute, 69-72, 124— 131, 162, 188-190 Botanical Museum, 46-49, 54-55, 59 Botanic Garden, 34 Party membership, 183-184 World War II casualties, 101-102 Stafleu, F.A.[1921- J, 211 Stalin, [J. (1879-1953)], 73, 87, 90, 164, 183, 190 Stalin Prize, 90 State Apothecary, 25, 29, 195 state farms, 122 State Hermitage, 15, 17 Stearn, William Thomas [191 1— Steinberg, E. I. [1884-1963], 55 Steinbock, S. D., 122 Steller, G. W. (1709-46), 31, 44 Stephan, F. H. (1757-1814), 28, 196 Stony Island, 7 Strasbourg, 27 2a stratigraphy, 106 “The Structure of the Tropical Rain Forest and Speciation in the Humid Tropics,” 113 Stubbe, H., 191 students. See education. subspecies, use of, 150-151 Sukaczev, V. N. (1880-1967), 39, 51, 53, 55, 57, facing 59, 80, 92, 118,121, after 130 Sumbawa, 112 Summer Palace and Garden of Peter the Great, 15 Supreme Soviet, 191, 203 Swedish botanist, 27 symposia, 133-134, 191 See also conferences. systematics. See taxonomy and systematics. ag Tadzhikistan Republic, 78, 109 taiga, 3, 16, 187 Takhtajan, A. L.(1910-_ ), 105, 106—- 107,111,112, 131, after 130, 138-139; cited, 137, 144— L455 Sil IS 2a lS Salo, 163, 206 Taliev, V. I., facing 59 Tamamschian, S. G., after 130 Tashkent University, 78 Tass, 192 taxonomists, 71, 74, 76, 85—92, 110, 112=113, 133), 1317-1395 143— 144, 146, 148, 154, 155-158 162, 180, 201 See also particular individuals. taxonomy and systematics contributions of Botanical Insti- tute, 85,188 crowning Russian achievement, 190-192 experimental, 91 Komarov’s method, 149-155 literature. See periodicals and serials, publications. new methods, 107, 139, 155, 162, 192 outstanding leaders, 85-86 relation to geobotany, 93 238 research by committee, 164-165 significance of Flora SSSR, 150, 160-166, 190-192 traditional strength, 9, 39, 55,71, 131,193 use of ‘‘series,’’ 90, 150-152 See also Departments; floristics; Laboratories; and specific taxa or regions. Tbilisi (Tiflis), 75 Tcherepanov, S. K., 128, 157 teaching secondary, 99-100 university, 74-76, 78, 88, 90, 108, 115, 126, 132, 134-135, 139, 146, 154 See also education. Technological Laboratory. See Laboratories. technology, 83, 96,116, 122, 131-132 teratology, 81 terminology, botanical, 81-82 Terechowsky, M. (1740-96), 27, 36, 195,196 Tertiary, 105 test plots, 72 Tiflis (Tbilisi), 75 Tikhomirov, B. A. (1909-— ), 101, 115, 121, facing 131, 170, 173, 176,211 Tiling, H. [1818-71], 32 Timiryazev, K. A. [1843-1920], 53 titles, use of, 123, 124, 126-127 Tolmatchev, A. I. (1903- _), 55, 57, 58,137, 138, 139, 151, 206 Tomsk Province, 75 Tomsk University, 48, 74-76 Tournefort, [J. P. (1656-1708) J, 9 trace elements. See microelements. ‘Transcaucasia, 75 See also Caucasus. translation policy of author, 23, 120-121, 205 Komarov Botanical Institute translations, 106-107, 108,115, 162 transliteration, 23, 129, 205 Transmigration Bureau, 30, 140 Tranzschel, V. A., 49. See Tranzschel, V.G. Tranzschel, V. G. (1868-1942), 49, 53,54, 55, 70, 77, 92, after 98, 102 Trautvetter, E. R. (1809-89), 30, 37, 41, 190, 198 Travaux de Musée Botanique de l Academie des Sciences, 59- 60, 199, 202 Russian title, 166 tree ferns, 72 “Trees and Shrubs of the USSR,” 116 Trifolium, 150 Trinius, C. B. (1778-1844), 43, 44-45, 46,47, 56, 57, facing 58, 61, 91, 188, 190, 197, 198 tropical explorations, 32-33, 79-80, 83, 103-104, 111-113, 172, 174, 189, 193, after 194, 202 tropical greenhouse collections, 33, 72, 79,97, 101-102, 104, 117, 135 tropical rain forest, 113 Trudy Botanicheskogo Instituta Akademi Nauk SSSR, 166 Trudy Botanicheskogo Muzeya Akademi Nauk SSSR, 166 Trudy Glavnogo Botanicheskogo Sada RSFSR, 166 tsarinas, 5, 7 Tsarist Government, 28 Tsarist Russia, 4, 34, 50, 59, 176 See also Imperial Russia. TSATS) See Onl Que Aalto Rales ey Tsinger, N. V., facing 59 Tsinserling, J. D. See Zinserling, J. D. Tsvelev, N.N.[1925- ], 127, 136, 157 Tsvetkova, N. V., 130 tundra, 101, 153 Turczaninov, N. S. (1796-1864), Index 30, 48 Turkestan, 54, 55 Turkevicz, [S. J.], 59 Turkish Armenia. See Turkmenia. Turkmenia, 49, 75 types, 31,128 U Ukrainian Botanical Society, 54 ultrastructure of choloroplast, 109, 188 Umbelliferae, 74, 75, 156 Unalaska, 32 Union Republics. See USSR: Republics. United Arab Republic, 104 See also Egypt. universities relation to Academy of Science, 176 Siberia’s oldest, 74 See also Leningrad State, Moscow, Tashkent, and Tomsk Universities. Urals, 90 USA botanic gardens, 98, 164 Department of Agriculture, 84, 128 descriptive biology compared, 93, 164-165, 180, 192-194 Geological Survey, 84, 94 libraries, 128 National Academy of Sciences, 177 National Arboretum, 84 National Herbarium, 112, 173 National Science Foundation, 162 scientists compared, 115, 164— 165, 179-180, 189, 192-194 Soviet-American contacts, 175 See also under American; Smith- sonian Institution. USSR economy, 20, 78, 83, 96, 124, 170. 239, See also Five Year Plans. government, 8, 18, 79, 94-95, 114, 159, 176-177, 181-182, 191, 203 leading botanists, 51, 76-77, 87, 91, 108,112,115, 157-158, 188. See also Russian botanists. Party. See Communist Party role. Republics, 23, 35, 36, 39, 40, CO 15s Uo Uy SOs, MOS. 109, 114, 115,127, 132, 156, 157, 160, 174-175, 191, 200. See also specific Republics. Russian name, 136 science, 36, 83, 171-172, 175- 180 scientific institutions, 36, 68, 69, 71, 73, 106, 114, 135, 187 travel bureau, 9, 18 trends in biology, 180, 193 trends in botany, 93-95, 133- 134, 138-139, 140, 174—- 175, 192-194 See also specific topics, ¢.g., education. Uzbekistan, 78, 127 V variety, use of, 150-151 Varlikh, V. K., facing 59 “vascular,” use in Russian, 121 vascular flora of USSR, statistics, 136, N37, WO, Mae, I 5533 vascular plants. See specific groups and topics, especially Departments: Vascular Plants; Flora SSSR; herbaria; Laboratories: Syste- matics and Georgraphy of Vascular Plants. “Vascular Plants I. Psilophytales to Coniferales,’’ 106 240 Komarov Botanical Institute Vassilczenko, I. T.[1903- J, 91, 101, 121, facing 130, 156-157; ‘cited, 29, 77, 81, 127, 205- 206, 208 Vassilevsky Island, 7, 63, 65 Vavilov, N. I. [1887-1942], 154, 155 VBO, 50. See All-Union Botanical Society. vegetation exhibits, 99, 118 research plans, 192-193 USSR, 47, 56, 84, 85, 93, 99, 114-115, 121, 133 See also expeditions and explora- tions; geobotany ; mapping; and specific foreign countries. “Vegetation Cover of the USSR,” 114 “Vegetation Map of the European Part of the USSR,” 114 ‘Vegetation of the USSR,” 95 Victoria amazonica, 33, 71—72, after 194,199 Victoria Conservatory, 71-72, 199 Victoria cruciana, 72 Viet-Nam, 79, 103-104, 172 virgin lands program, 114 visitors, 35,117, 118, 135,172, 194 vitamins, 101 viticulture, 78 Volga River, 16 “Volume of Scientific Works Carried Out in Leningrad During the Course of the Three Years of the Great National War (1941-43),” 101 Voronikhin, N. N., 49, 55 Voronin, M. S. (1838-1903), 49-50, 61,199 Voronov, [J. N. (1874-1931)], 143, 144 Votchal, E. F. (1864-1937), 52, facing 59 Vucinich, A., 126, 177, 209 W Wagenknecht, B. L., 208 Walker, E.H.[1899- ], 48 wars, 116 World War I, 75, 140 World War II, 17, 19, 33, 36, 37, 68, 74, 76, 77, 90, 100-— 102, 103,105, 108, 111, 136, 140, 157, 159, 164, 172, 183, 190-191, 202 See also Revolution. Washington, D. C., 128 White Sea, 16 Winter Palace, 12, 13,15, 17,18 wood collections, 33, 72, 106, 118 woody plants, 72, 96, 98, 104, 116, 135 “World Atlas,” 94 Wormskjold, [M. (1783-1845 )], 32 Wossnesensky, [I. G. (1816—71)], 32 Wrangell, [F. P.], 32 4 Yakimov, P. A., 71, 109, 116 Yakovlev, M. S.(1902-_ ), 108, 112, 122, facing 131, 170; cited, 206, 209, 210 Yarmolenko, A. V. (1905-44), 102, 118 Yunatov, A. A., 51,121,170 Z Zabinkova, N. N., 170 Zalensky, OL VE 3045 Talo om 22 Zamyatnin, B.N., 135, 207 Zavadsky, K.M.(1910— ), 118 Zheleznov, N. I., 55 Zinserling, J. D. [1894-1938], 73, 82, 92, 202 Znamensky, J. A., 102 Zuyev, V. F., 44 AA Continued from front flap. To a large degree, this is a history of Russian botany. It is important reading for botanists, historians of science, and those concerned with scientific develop- ment in the Soviet Union. Stanwyn G. Shetler is an Associate Curator of Phanerogams with the Smith- sonian Institution's Museum of Natural History. He is in charge of temperate and arctic North American collections, and his specialties are the flora of arctic re- gions and the systematics of the family Campanulaceae. Mr. Shetler came into contact with bot- anists at the Komarov Botanical Institute through his work. His interest in the In- stitute and in Russian botany was fur- thered when the visited the Komarov in 1964, its 250th anniversary. Mr. Shetler was recently appointed ex- ecutive secretary of the editorial commit- tee for the new Flora North America Project. He received his B.S. and MS. de- grees from Cornell University and is currently a candidate in absentia for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Michigan. SUIT ALY MUA ~