Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Beatrix Potter, scientist

by Manasee Wagh, The Scientist

Reposted from:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53057/

The acclaimed children's book author also was an ahead-of-her-time botanist.

The Lake District in northwest England is a verdant expanse of rolling grassy countryside, dotted with trees and lakes, and surrounded by mountains. This idyllic landscape inspired Beatrix Potter to craft her famous children's book illustrations about Peter Rabbit and other woodland creatures, but it also fueled her other, less well-known, passion -- botany.

Potter did a lot more than draw the natural world. She was the first person in Britain to speculate in a scientific paper that lichens are symbiotic life forms, conducted experiments in her kitchen, and recorded in detail her observations of algal and fungal properties.

Beatrix Potter, scientist

"What is impressive about her work is that despite Miss Potter's lack of scientific training, she was one of very few Victorians engaged in experimental observations on fungi," says Nicholas Money, professor of botany at Miami University.

"She was an exceptional botanist when women weren't allowed to be," says Linda Lear, author of Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature, published in January this year. "And she had the pluck to stick to her theories, even when the professionals dismissed her."

Women of Potter's upper class status were expected to stay home and give tea parties, but Potter found such prospects boring. She turned to painting, and became drawn to fungi. "She loved their colors and shapes and the fact that they appeared and disappeared in the ground," says Lear. At the age of 26, Potter began corresponding with a rural postman and enthusiastic naturalist named Charles McIntosh, who was interested in fungi. He promised to send Potter samples of new species he discovered by mail, so she could draw them. Throughout their long partnership, Potter drew detailed, accurate pictures of 350 fungi, mosses and spores, mailing one copy to McIntosh, and keeping one for her own records.

With drawings she made from her observations of lichen, Potter believed she had evidence that the organism consisted of a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and a photosynthetic partner, algae. In her zeal to find out the truth for herself, she cultivated both the algal cells and the fungal spores in her kitchen. Her observations of how the two partners joined to form one organism placed her in a small group of believers, including Simon Schwendener, a Swiss botanist, and Anton de Bary, an accomplished botanist who wrote an early textbook dealing with fungal biology. However, this symbiosis theory of lichen was unpopular in England at the time, and many scientists failed to take Potter seriously.

Roy Watling, of the British Mycological Society, says Mary Noble, one of his former colleagues, stumbled upon Potter's drawings close to 15 years ago while sorting through bags filled with Potter's work. "Until then nobody knew about her work with spores," he says. Potter's illustrations captured details about fungi that had eluded other scientists at the time. For example, Potter drew the first record of the fungus Tremella simplex in Britain. She painted the fruiting bodies, the basidiospores, and all other parts at all ages in the fungus life cycle. "She drew everything she saw," says Watling.

Looking at Potter's notes, Watling could see she was observing germinating spores close to every 20 minutes or so for her experiments. She drew these pictures in the late 19th century, says Watling, "but it wasn't until the 1920's and '30s people actually started describing these fungi." And it wasn't until the 1940s that others recognized the differences between closely related fungi that Potter saw nearly 40 years earlier, he adds.

In April 1897, after painstaking preparation, Potter was ready to present her first and only paper, "Germination of the spores of the Agaricineae," to the Linnean Society of London. While there is no record of the paper's content, her notes and journal suggest that she described her experiments cultivating the germinating basidiospores and her in-depth observations. In a letter written prior to her paper submission, Potter said she grew 40 to 50 kinds of spores, but only submitted observations of A. velutipes (now known as Flammulina velutipes).

However, women were not allowed to attend official Society meetings. Potter's paper was offered instead through a botanist at Kew Gardens, George Massee, a member of the Society. In her journal, which was published in 1966, she wrote about Linnean Society members' dismissive attitudes towards her work.

Watling says Potter was not intimidated from continuing her work because of male opposition from the Linnean Society. "Her character would not have been put off by stodgy scientists," he says.

The Society's scientists accepted her paper but asked her to conduct a little more work, which Potter planned to do. But her success in children's literature drew her attention away from science, and she never published her original 1897 manuscript. Soon, her talents in illustration began to overshadow her scientific success.

Eventually, scientists began to appreciate Potter's contributions, and the Linnean Society held a meeting in her honor 100 years after she submitted her paper.

Potter settled into life in the Lake District with her husband, later saving it from development by giving 4,000 acres (1620 hectares) of land to The National Trust in the UK. The largest collection of Potter's drawings, over 450 minutely detailed paintings, is in the Armitt collection in Cumbria, England.

Manasee Wagh
mail@the-scientist.com

Image: Flammulina velutipes, a watercolor by Beatrix Potter, courtesy of the Armitt Collection.

Editor's note (posted April 6): Due to a technical error, now corrected, an earlier version of this story contained a misquote.

Links within this article:

Beatrix Potter, animal drawings
http://www.peterrabbit.com/beatrixpotter/beatrixpotter1c_a.cfm

Nicholas Money
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/botany/bot/nm.html

L Lear, Beatrix Potter: A life in nature, January 2007.
http://www.amazon.com/

Fungi drawings
http://www.peterrabbit.com/beatrixpotter/beatrixpotter1c_c.cfm

T. Toma, "Genes that mediate symbiosis," The Scientist, June 27, 2002.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/20488

Roy Watling
http://www.ilmyco.gen.chicago.il.us/Authors/RWatling573.html

Linnean Society of London
http://www.linnean.org/

B. Potter, Beatrix Potter, a journal, October 2006.
http://www.amazon.com/

Beatrix Potter
http://www.bpotter.com

Comments 1 - 6 of 6 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #30818 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 1:56 am

 avatarA fascinating woman: artist, botanist, and enviromentalist.

Though she plodded along by herself fairly well without any official blessing from male scientists, you got to wonder what else she could have achieved if women were allowed to participate as professional and recognized scientists in her time period.

With E.O. Wilson's wonderful presentation still fresh in mind, as it is problematic for the furthering of science and discovery if species are allowed to die out at the astonishing rate they are at present, it is just as problematic that 50% of the human species, that is, females, though they are not threatened with extinction, they are in many countries, a dormant species.

Other Comments by Logicel

2. Comment #31022 by Machinus on April 10, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Inspiring.

Other Comments by Machinus

3. Comment #31038 by Prieten on April 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Have you seen the recently released movie about Beatrix Potter? Now, I think it focused a little too much on her love life and the Peter Rabbit books. I had no idea she was so accomplished in the field of botany.

On a different note, it is very hard to tell from the usernames used here in richarddawkins.net, but I have gotten the impression there aren't as many women active in these forums as there are men. Does atheism appeal more to men than women? Maybe women are just too busy to log on to internet sites like this.

Other Comments by Prieten

4. Comment #31046 by Barnacle on April 10, 2007 at 7:21 pm

 avatarI should speak up here I suppose - I'm female.

However, I do recall a poll that did suggest the visitors to this site are predominantly male. I also get the impression that I know more male atheists than female but I've also noticed that my male friends generally tend to be more interested in science, politics and 'how the world works' in general than my female friends who are thinking more about raising a family, worrying over what to wear, conflicts with their bosses etc. That's some heavy stereotyping if one generalises - but it's certainly how my acquaintances come across.

Didn't know much of that about Beatrix Potter - interesting.

Other Comments by Barnacle

5. Comment #147423 by bluebird on March 20, 2008 at 11:27 am

 avatarA wonderful article to read this Equinox...good links, too!

...donated 4,000 acres

A local painter did something similiar recently; very admirable.

Beatrix Potter was a remarkable woman; her charming books/illustrations continue to enchant.

Other Comments by bluebird

6. Comment #147433 by Geoff on March 20, 2008 at 11:57 am

 avatarNicely revived, bluebird! I'd forgotten this one, good to read it again!

Other Comments by Geoff
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE