Journal Number 92
September 2004

HISTORICAL REPRINT

Botanical Drawings 4
This is the final part from Walter Hood Fitch's articles first published in the Gardeners' Chronicle, 1869.

Analysis. - In drawing analyses of flowers, their size should be regulated by that of the drawing in which they are to be introduced, as small dissections added to a large plate appear trying, and if they are to be of use in explaining the structure they should always be sufficiently magnified to exhibit unmistakably and correctly the smallest peculiarity that may be of interest.

In some earlier works on botany, the dissections are often represented of even less than the natural size, and are placed, perhaps judiciously, so as almost to escape observation: an instance of bad taste or timidity, which is not so common in later productions of the pencil or press.

If analyses are intended to be useful, they should be large enough to be sufficiently explanatory even in respect to their hairs, glands, etc. There is a general tendency in first attempts at dissection to represent the portions too small, on the same principle, possibly, that schoolboys are rather partial to small hand-writing, under the impression that errors are not so easily detected. It requires some judgment to hit the happy medium.

For general purposes a flower shown cut open through the middle is sufficient, but for scientific enlightenment much more is requisite: and the beginner, if he wishes to perfect himself in these matters, should consult some botanical work, for it is not my object in these notes to give a lecture on structural botany.

If a Forget-me-not be the subject of study, the beginner should first faintly define the contour,
then mark of the relative position and size of the stamens, and notice whether they are betwixt
or opposite the lobes of the corolla, as in Figure K(ii).

K. Dissections of
(i) Angular Solomon's Seal;
(ii) Forget-me-not

When the ovary is represented as cut open, to show the arrangement of the ovules, it is advisable to cut the corolla also in half verticality and treat it as in the former case. Cruciferous plants, such as the Wallflower, will be found easier to render if treated as in Figure L(i); the lines there marked across as a test of the distance and size of the parts, may be put in or imagined.

In making sections of the ovary, it will save much trouble and use of india-rubber if they be treated as in the section given below; if there are many compartments this circle should be divided systematically, by lines radiating from the centre, and it is possible thus to make them all of the same dimensions. The right-hand figure in this diagram shows how the structure of the Cowslip may be shown.

L. Dissections of
(i) Wallflower; (ii) Cowslip

Irregular flowers, such as those of the Mint or Dead Nettle, may be represented neatly divided vertically with but half the parts remaining, as in the following cut, or spread open like any regular flower. It must be remembered that, however unequal the lobes of the corolla may be, the stamens or filaments almost always spring from between them, and it is a certain test to draw a faint line from the base of each filament to the cleft of the lower.

The filaments in such flowers are often attached low down in the tube, and if this precaution be
not taken, a botanist might have some reason to doubt the correctness or botanical knowledge
of the draughtsman. Figure M (i) will, perhaps, be of service in illustration of my observations.

Papilionaceous, or Pea-flowers are often represented, for scientific purposes, with all the parts separated, but it is a good and concise method to show a lower cut vertically in half through the ovary, so as to explain the relative position of the parts, the number of ovules in the seed-vessel, etc. (Fig. M (ii)).

M. Dissections of irregular flowers:
(1) Labiate; (ii) Pea

The foregoing remarks may be serviceable to those who are ambitious of testing their patience, and correctness of eye, by dissecting flowers. Indeed, one of the best exercises of the former virtue with which I am acquainted, is the analysis of a dried flower, from an herbarium specimen, perhaps very small, worm-eaten and gluey, and having no apparent analogy to any known plant.

After treating of the inside of flowers, it may be well to allude to the various coverings of the outside, and of plants generally, viz., the hairs, down, and down, and spines with which they are sometimes clothed. Let not the botanical artist who would earn a character for careful observation and correct representation, regard these as trifling matters, for they have caused more schism in the botanical world, perhaps, than their apparent importance would justify, even to the bandying between opposing parties of opprobrious epithets, such as "hair-splitters" and "lumpers". It is best to steer a middle course between the contending factions, for an artist, if judicious, should have no bias either way he is generally regarded as a neutral person.

Hairs, however, if very obvious on a plant, should certainly be rendered, and not in a slovenly manner. The angle they form with the part covered should be noted, as well as their general form, whether glandular or stellate, etc. : if they are represented at all, they should be done correctly. The artist will see that it is safest to be correct to a hair, and if he wishes to educate and refine his eyes in this respect, I could not recommend more suitable subjects for the purpose than the British Roses and Brambles, two groups of plants greatly indebted to acute British botanists for their numerous subdivisions, and which, without the aid of particularly correct drawings, it would be very difficult to define.

The few hints that I have given, if applied practically, will, I hope, induce the beginner to proceed systematically in flower drawing, as he should do in any other pursuit. Then, by dint of zealous application, he may become qualified even to draw a dried specimen from the herbarium - an effort which will test his judgment, and call forth all his knowledge of perspective and adjustment.

It is not absolutely desirable (as some by their works would seem to imagine) that a drawing should exhibit any amount of evidence that it has been made from a dried specimen, but it is a curious fact that in drawings made from such materials some latent manifestation is seldom wanting, though he acute botanical critic would not hesitate to whom he should award credit for bad taste or ignorance-the plant or the artist. Sketching living plants is merely a species of copying, but dried specimens test the artist's ability to the uttermost; and by drawings made from them would I be judged as a correct draughtsman.

Shading. - Having delivered myself of these truisms, and my humble opinion thereon, I shall venture to say something about the shading of plants, premising that I do not allude to the artistic treatment of which they are susceptible, but rather to theoretical shading.

In drawings with a background all the shades require to be proportionally deeper than in those on white paper, and various effects of light and shade may be rendered which should be charily indulged in when the background is white, for in the latter case the tone may be as light or dark as suits the taste of the artist. In strictly botanical drawings a background is seldom given, and in most cases all the shading necessary is just enough to give unmistakable form to the parts, which should be all treated as if opaque. The transparency of the flowers may be slightly rendered, but the translucency of the leaves should never be attempted.

N. The shading of (i) leaves; (ii) petals and stem

As a general rule in shading with pencil or with brown or black, if the drawing is to be coloured, the shading should be faintly put in, and any attempt to supply the place of actual colour by tinting all the surface of a flower or leaf should be avoided as a useless waste of labour, and consequently in bad taste. I make an exception in the case of dark-coloured fruits or stems; they may be tinted and shaded deeper with good effect.

In using the lead pencil it is of course necessary to produce the effect of shade by a series of touches, and unless the leaves be small, the lines should never be made in the direction of the midrib, but should follow the direction of the veins as shown in the left hand cut.

If the artist should have occasion to lithograph or draw for wood-engraving, he will find the advantage of proceeding in this manner, as the lines answer a double purpose, and impart both shade and texture. In the shadow of one leaf on another (an effect which should always be rendered in a coloured or highly-shaded drawing) the lines may be hatched, as it is technically termed, i.e., crossed diagonally.

In flowers the touches should blend with the visible or suppositious venation, for the shading, however finely done, if the lines be not systematically arranged, will never give the proper effect of shading. To make the lines of the shading harmonize with the venation may appear a very simple thing, but if the reader will test his skill in that respect, I venture to predict that he will discover it to be one of the most difficult exercises of the pencil.

Stems, or any cylindrical portions of plants, should be treated as in the instance of the right hand figure in the foregoing cut - a reflected light should be left on the shaded side; this will suggest that a section would be circular, but were the shading deepest near the outline of the stem, it would appear compressed, and a section would be oval. I have heard it remarked that reflected lights are an artistic refinement in botanical drawings for scientific purposes, but as it is certainly effective and natural an artist may safely give the paper on which he draws some credit for reflection.